
James Damore has filed a class action lawsuit against Google - willwill100
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/james-damore-just-filed-a-class-action-lawsuit-against-google-saying-it-discriminates-against-white-male-conservatives/
======
dotnetisnotdead
Honestly, this whole thing is just ugly. I read what he wrote. It was (mostly)
ugly but contained a lot of truth.

Before you downvote/call me a Nazi, I'm a mixed race woman in tech.

I definitely see people hired just because of their minority status. I also
see people hired who are minorities but also great at their job. It's not a
binary pattern. But those who are hired just because they are a POC or female,
yet are terrible at their job stand out. People notice it, but few say it.

Our company recently hired a black woman as a "Software Engineer" who can't
write a SQL statement. She has a "taken some tutorials" level of programming
skill as far as I have noticed and produces things very, very slow. People
notice this, and it makes them angry. I'm sure the other engineers talk about
this even more when I'm not in the room. Our boss is proud of how much he is
"making the team diverse" yet it's only going to cause problems for the team.

I like to think I was hired based on my skillset, not to improve the numbers.
I've worked hard to get here. People likely forget or don't care how "diverse"
I am when I am working because I produce. And I fully support bringing in
diverse candidates, it's essential to get those viewpoints, so long as they
are a qualified candidate to start with.

I do think that men and women are biologically different and, it likely does
contribute to a lack of interest in tech from women. Almost all of the women
from my social circle are smart, pragmatic, driven and successful yet have
zero interest in a technical career. They excel in their given industries but
ours they want no part of. I don't believe intelligence is more prevalent in
either gender, but I do believe there are some traits that shape who we are.

That's something that's rarely addressed, for fear of being ostracized.

As far as his "conservative white male" discrimination claims, I've seen that
too. My boss specifically requested candidates that are not middle-aged white
males. But it's nowhere near the same level of discrimination that people of
color or women have endured for decades. Perhaps the reason people don't feel
sorry for conservative white males is that if they are rejected by one company
they can keep trying and will find an "old school" company that will hire
them. We have not had that luxury, for blacks and women it was 100 nos for
every 1 yes. It's not that way for white guys, sorry.

~~~
praestigiare
You claim that there is a pattern of bad diversity hires, but your anecdotes
are just as easily explained by confirmation bias: You see an incompetent male
engineer, and you write him off as an idiot and forget him. You see an
incompetent woman, and she becomes evidence that there is a problem with
diversity programs. You remember evidence that supports your narrative.

Obviously my statement is not evidence either. I only wanted to point it out
because this is so often overlooked when it comes to these issues. This is an
arena where our cognitive biases are especially pernicious, and any discussion
needs to address them.

~~~
nilkn
It depends on whether the incompetent male engineers are just as incompetent
as the incompetent female engineers. For instance, she mentioned a female
developer who couldn't write SQL queries. Are the incompetent male developers
at that same level of incompetence?

Of course taking this into account cannot completely eliminate selection bias,
and the sample size either way is probably too small to be all that
meaningful. It sounds like the attitude of her manager towards the incompetent
developer is actually the most significant point here: this incompetent
developer is being retained and in fact praised by her manager for diversity
despite the obvious issues. Does the manager treat incompetent male developers
the same way? The implication of the post is clearly "no", but again selection
bias is possible.

~~~
stephenr
> she mentioned a female _developer who couldn 't write SQL queries_

I'd wager a third of the nodejs "developer community" could be described that
way. The key thing is was she _hired_ to write sql queries?

~~~
dotnetisnotdead
Yes, that is part of her job, but it wasn't covered in the interview process
from what I've been told.

~~~
stephenr
I've worked with plenty of tech and related people who didn't understand basic
technologies we expect in a given field.

I tend to reserve judgement until their effort can be judged. If he or she is
slow but learning and improving, I'd accept (and probably raise with a
manager) that the hiring process is flawed and try to help him/her.

If its just utter idiocy, I'm less forgiving.

I literally had a business analyst come to me - the new guy at the time - on
her last day after several _years_ of working in the org and ask me what _her_
email address is.

Or the BA who insisted she didnt need to write a clear and specific spec for a
feature, because she could just open up dreamweaver and put some buttons on a
page.

Those sorts of people I have zero fucking time for, and will drink merrily
when they quit/are fired.

~~~
YeGoblynQueenne
Unfortunately, they tend to be promoted quickly. For being so brilliant, you
understand.

And then they're your boss. Or your boss's mate.

------
john_moscow
He doesn't have a choice really. With the PR mess he got himself into, no big
company will ever hire him. Imagine the possible headlines "Microsoft hires
the James Damore, the male supremacy advocate fired from Google". Nope,
regardless the technical skill or his actual personality, his public image is
forever ruined.

So he realistically has a choice between becoming a paid speaker for fringe
ultra-right organizations, trying to sue Google and retire off the proceeds,
or leaving tech and becoming a noname blue collar or a freelancer forever
hiding his face.

I hope they will settle for an amount sufficient for retirement and the dude's
life won't get ruined due to a stupid political game he didn't even realize he
was playing.

~~~
vowelless
This is true. If the memo wasn't enough, him immediately going to right wing
YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Mike cernovich, Joe Rogan,
Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, etc. is suspicious. [1]

Generally I wouldn't have minded if he went to right wing outlets, as long as
he had also gone to left wing outlets. I was willing to listen to his
reasoning. But it became clear after the memo came out that he didn't engage
with left wingers and maybe he was indeed just appealing to the right.

[1] I don't want to use "right wing" in a disparaging way. I think classical
liberalism is perhaps right of center today. I think some of the right wing
narratives make sense, but with big caveats. The far right is just a slip
away, though. And they would hunt people like me down...

Edit: I don't mean right wing in a disparaging way. I enjoy Joe Rogan (his
interviews with NDT and Lawrence Krause are a lot of fun), Dave Rubin (his
interview with Faisal is fantastic) and Jordan Peterson. But they are clearly
classical liberal, which is arguably right of center today.

Maybe I was extreme in saying far right is just a slip away. I think similar
things can happen on the left too of course. Let just not go to the "far-*"...

~~~
ryguytilidie
Wait, Joe Rogan is considered a right wing youtuber? I listen to his show all
the time and I'm a pretty big liberal and while he sometimes does the whole
"everyone is sooooo PC now" thing, he also talks negatively about Trump, the
GOP and right wing politics constantly.

I also listened to the James Damore episode, and while I thought James did a
good job of making his point and Joe did an AWESOME job of interviewing him
while not taking sides, it felt like James was pretty disingenuous and lacked
a general understanding of how to behave in a workplace as well as how to
treat other people.

~~~
vowelless
As I mentioned, I don't disparage "right wing". I actually enjoy Joe Rogans
podcast, and also Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson. All three of them are
solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today
(individualism vs. collectivism, equality of opportunity vs equality of
outcome, etc). But AFAIK, damore never came to the young Turks, Chapo trap
house, which are leftist podcasts. I could be wrong.

~~~
lurr
> All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of
> center today

Classical liberal just seems like yet another rebranding by people who don't
want to just call themselves conservatives. I've yet to hear a "classical
liberal" who doesn't seem like yet another libertarian/conservative.

~~~
nailer
I've consistenly voted Labour / Labor for all my life, and my poliics haven't
changed. I still believe in looking after the elderly, children and the ill,
and negotation. I loved Milliband. But the left (at least Labour in the UK)
has been siezed by a hard left group called Momentum, that supports far-left
political violence, is often openly hostile to people based on skin color and
gender. Classical liberals haven't changed, the far-left has just taken over
left wing politics.

~~~
nailer
Small edit: "and negotation" should be "and collective negotation"

------
Veen
From the article:

> women may not be equally represented in tech because they are biologically
> less capable of engineering

Why do news outlets persistently misrepresent what he actually said? I've read
his memo and just about every news article says it contains claims that it
doesn't. I have no view on whether he's right or not, but I remain shocked at
the misrepresentation of his views throughout the tech media.

~~~
ebbv
From his memo:

> I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or
> that these differences are “just.” _I’m simply stating that the distribution
> of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to
> biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see
> equal representation of women in tech_ and leadership.

He said _exactly_ that, right there. Why do conservatives always appear to
defend this guy and try to pretend the memo wasn't full of repugnant crap.

~~~
x3n0ph3n3
I think the "preferences" part carries more weight. More men _want_ to be
engineers than women.

~~~
threeseed
And if all Damore said was that he would still be at Google.

~~~
lurr
I don't know why you are being downvoted.

I think if he had made a better written argument that focused more clearly on
the idea that part of the gender gap is due to a lack of interest by women,
that he probably still would be employed.

------
ironjunkie
After reading the memo and after reading most of the comments here that claim
that users also read the memo makes me very afraid on the state of educated
people in America.

I cannot believe that most of you still go with the media narrative that
Damore claimed "women are worse than man at engineering" while this is a very
obvious misrepresentation of what he wrote in order to fill a narrative.

This is all part of a politically driven agenda that destroys everyone trying
to question the unique, politically-correct acceptable way of thinking.

And it kills me that smart people in HN are falling for it so easily.

~~~
BinaryIdiot
What? He _actually does_ say that...

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men
> and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences
> may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and
> leadership.

[...]

> This is all part of a politically driven agenda that destroys everyone
> trying to question the unique, politically-correct acceptable way of
> thinking.

This is nonsensical. He wrote bullshit, he caused a problem at his office of
employment, he was fired. End of discussion. If you end up pissing off most of
your co-workers it leads to a hostile environment so you remove the fewest
amount of people to fix it. It doesn't even matter if what he wrote is or
isn't correct at that point.

~~~
ironjunkie
No, he didn't say that.

He speaks about the `distribution of preferences and abilities`.

Going from a distribution to state that `women are worse then men at
engineering` is a false narrative and COMPLETELY different. You probably
didn't realize that because you already made your own politically-correct
version of the truth on that subject, and refuse any discussion about those
topics.

For example, what he said doesn't say anything about two specific individual
women and men abilities.

About your second point. That's the whole issue! Bringing up any point of
debate or discussion on those politically-driven topics will end up pissing of
some people (while a majority might agree, but will stay silent because
politically incorrect). It is very very sad that this is the state of affairs,
and that we cannot discuss those sensible subjects anymore without being fully
ostracized.

~~~
samfriedman
I'd say that the very fact that identical quotes from the memo can be used to
argue opposite positions in earnest shows - with no judgment for which side is
correct - that the memo itself is poorly written.

~~~
ironjunkie
That's maybe why we should stop focusing on a 10 word quote and maybe read and
understand the full memo (which provides context) ?

------
Jonovono
I never really saw _too_ much issue with what he wrote. It seemed a lot of
people were mad at him for things he never said. It's been awhile since I read
his document, but I remember expecting it to be so bad from all the uproar I
was hearing, but after reading it I couldn't find much to be angry about. Can
someone enlighten me - i'll admit, this may be a highly ignorant topic of
mine.

~~~
paulgb
I'm a former Googler (left before the memo) and I was upset by the memo
because, in implying that the hiring bar was lower for women, it contained the
thinly veiled corolloary that my female colleagues were less capable than my
male colleagues. That did not match my experience at all.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Affirmative action is the policy of favoring members of a disadvantaged group
who suffer or have suffered from discrimination within a culture[1]. Google is
an affirmative action employer[2]. If women are favored over men, then
wouldn't it make sense that a less skilled woman has the potential of being
selected over a more skilled man?

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action)

[2] [https://careers.google.com/how-we-hire/](https://careers.google.com/how-
we-hire/)

~~~
paulgb
I don't see any support for [2] in the page you linked (maybe because I am on
mobile). There may have been efforts to recruit that were directed at women
(e.g. sending employees to Grace Hopper), but ultimately the bar was the same
for everyone.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
It's at the bottom of the page.

> Google is proud to be an equal opportunity workplace and is an affirmative
> action employer.

~~~
paulgb
I see it now. I believe that's something every major US Corp that sells to the
federal government has to say: [https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-
and-samples/hr-...](https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/tools-and-
samples/hr-qa/pages/cms_013810.aspx)

------
ThrustVectoring
You need a very minimal amount of social skill to succeed in programming -
just enough to not piss coworkers off too badly while working together on
projects. Past that, you get mostly quiet and controlled environments,
managers willing to let you work on your special interests, and generally get
left alone to stare at your screen and type things out. This is one of the
best working environments you can find for autistic people. And all these
factors that make it so good for autistics makes it more hellish for
neurotypicals: you have techies to socialize with who do not like to be
interrupted, lots of time expected to be working instead of socializing, and
your soft-skills aren't particularly well suited for making the computer do
the things you want.

There are something like three to five times as many autistic males than
females, depending on the cutoff point and study used. I'm honestly astounded
that people are rejecting the biological claim, given how strongly it attracts
autistics.

IMHO, a lot of inclusivity-in-tech movements are horrifically ableist for
wanting to destroy this niche in the pursuit of making the programming niche
more welcoming to other groups. It's about goddamn time there's some push-back
against these sorts of gentrifying movements, they're incredibly bad for the
work environment interests of autistics.

~~~
bertil
Your argument that “inclusivity-in-tech [is] ableist for wanting to destroy
this niche in the pursuit of making the programming niche more welcoming to
other groups” is interesting and probably a much better way to represent a
claim similar to Damore in a far less offensive way to women. I can personally
name a handful of non-neuro-typical people who would wholeheartedly agree
(half of them females because my friends are frustratingly non-
representative).

However, if you check the ratio of people even moderately high on the
Asperger’s scale among programmers, it is much higher than other more social
profession but still a _small portion overall_. That difference doesn’t come
close to explaining the gender gap. Maybe you care for all introverts (who
resent interruptions) including the majority of introverts who are neuro-
typical. I do believe most programmers are introvert but I’m not familiar with
the gender distribution of introversion but I’d be surprised if it were large
enough to explain the gender disparity in tech.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
>However, if you check the ratio of people even moderately high on the
Asperger’s scale among programmers, it is much higher than other more social
profession but still a small portion overall. That difference doesn’t come
close to explaining the gender gap.

That's why I included the part about the programming work environment
generally being unpleasant and demanding. I didn't make the connection
explicit, but "high paying job that sucks" is a preferential attractor for
male workers. 90% of workplace deaths are men, men tend to do more things like
"work on dangerous and dirty oil rigs", men tend to work more hours than
women, and women tend to accumulate in more personally rewarding jobs such as
teaching or social work. The end result is a gross earnings gap that basically
disappears when you control for these sorts of choices.

So to be explicit: becoming a programmer is a choice that pays well, but is
difficult work, requires a large time commitment to study, and is not
intuitively gratifying. On that basis alone I'd expect outsized male
participation.

>I’m not familiar with the gender distribution of introversion

In terms of big-5 personality traits, the gendered differences are that women
tend to score higher on Agreeableness and Neuroticism. I don't think it's
particularly relevant to this whole discussion, though.

------
dragonwriter
So, having finally gone through this in detail, what strikes me the most about
this _as a legal filing_ is that it seems very unlikely to be certified as a
class action. A class action usually required a simple factual mechanism to
identify class members; part of the point of a class action is to avoid
needing to litigate the details of each individual case.

But instead of identifying a specific, readily identifiable class that is
affected, the classes in this suit are defined as any Google employee against
whom Google engaged in certain classes of illegal discrimination in California
in a given timeframe; this require litigating individual discrimination claims
for each potential class member to determine if they are a class member. Since
class members have to be identified and given a chance to opt-out before
settlement or trial, this is impractical—its what a class action exists to
avoid.

Compare to the Microsoft sex discrimination class action, which defined the
class as all women employed in defined roles and levels in particular parts of
the organization during a given timeframe.

Also, a class lead plaintiff’s claims—not just the law claimed to be violated
but the specific manner—are supposed to be typical of the class; while it's
very hard to make any guesses of what would be typical of such an ill-defined
class, Damore’s case seems to all appearanced to be _sui generis_. Maybe I'm
missing something, but the class action aspect here seems to be either a
complete Hail Mary or a ploy for additional media attention.

------
jimrandomh
This clearly is (or is going to be) a Demon Thread.
[https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-
th...](https://www.lesserwrong.com/posts/BZtAavpsy9WtMYgEL/demon-threads) .
People seem to be angry about what was said in the past, but don't agree on
what was actually said or what those things meant. Attempts to clarify seem to
mostly be throwing fuel on the fire instead. None of this is helping.

~~~
rainbowmverse
I think you're right. My instincts must be improving because something felt
off after I made a few comments, and then I paged down a few times to here.
And by a few I mean a few tens. I tried collapsing subthreads to get a handle
on it, but it's really just a mess.

How else would several subthreads of subthreads report 40+ replies in an hour
once the whole thing is collapsed? There be demons.

------
zamalek
> illegal hiring quotas

Whether or not this is illegal, or true, this is an anti-pattern. If you want
representation (and PR) hiring quotas are great; however, if you truly want to
empower they work against your goals. At the end of the day any person who
walks into a job because of a quota will question, "did I get this job because
of my gender/race/creed/orientation?" While you have provided them with
opportunity it would be very difficult for that person to fairly evaluate
themselves and especially determine whether they are making progress in their
career.

~~~
sp332
Making someone question whether they are qualified is better than not hiring
them at all. Quotas are useful if you have reason to believe that your hiring
process is biased and you are missing out on qualified candidates. That way
you're not passing up too many candidates from specific groups that you're
having a hard time characterizing.

~~~
zamalek
Quotas do have their place for instigating change, to more correctly state my
views (which are incredibly complex, just like the subject is): I think that
they rapidly outgrow their usefulness. If you have women in hire/fire
positions, _in theory_ the bias should work itself out. It probably wouldn't
in reality.

It's a nasty situation. We want to make progress as society, which means
quantifying that progress (quotas make this impossible). However, at the same
time we are trying to make that progress to represent individuals and, yes,
place them in lucrative jobs to level the playing field (which quotas assist).

> reason to believe that your hiring process is biased and you are missing out
> on qualified candidates

That is to my point. How could you justify that position if you have no way of
measuring it? Find 50 lions and 50 white lions, put them in an enclosure and
ask a scientist to tell you what percentage of lions are white based on that
sample.

I'm not saying that we don't have to solve this, or that it has been solved.
It hasn't. I really question our approach (and I don't have a better
alternative, apart from eradicating gender stereotypes from a young age).

Are we still in the 1990's with a social equality facade?

~~~
sp332
> Are we still in the 1990's with a social equality facade?

No, things have gotten worse since the 90's.
[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/women-in-
tech_n_69...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/27/women-in-
tech_n_6955940.html) Women have a >40% quit rate, so it's not just the hiring
practices which need work.
[https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/womenint...](https://www.ncwit.org/sites/default/files/resources/womenintech_facts_fullreport_05132016.pdf)
(PDF)

~~~
mpweiher
Define "worse".

An easy explanation for higher quit rates is that the various programs to get
more women into tech worked, but the percentage of women who actually _want_
to be in tech hasn't budged.

When you interview both men and women, women actually report higher rates of
support from their companies and superiors than the men. It is one of the few
areas where there are differences. The other is "enjoy the work", which women
rate a lot lower.

------
huffpopo
Even if James Damore does not win Google has a number of practices that could
be considered embarrassing if they were to be made public. I know a number of
Googlers who confide to me privately about their experiences. Traditionally
they would not have an outlet to express their grievances because no-one
really cares. I'm hoping this lawsuit will give them and others a chance leak
some of these practices. I'm interested in what people outside of SV tech
bubble will think about it.

~~~
hnaccy
Could you describe some of these practices?

~~~
hguant
If there's any veracity to the lawsuit's claim that Google employees
maintained blacklists of employees based on their political affiliations, or
boo'd new hires on the basis of their skin tone, Google just handed Fox News
an excellent ratings boost.

------
dmode
Why would a "white male conservative" sue a corporation when the conservative
platform believes that in a free market corporations should be allowed to
discriminate as they please ? I have heard Ron Paul (ok, a libertarian) state
numerous times how he doesn't support civil rights, because the public will
stop visiting those businesses who engage in discriminatory behavior.
Shouldn't James Damore just let the free market take care of Google for its
allegedly discriminatory position and wait till we all migrate to Duck Duck Go
and iOS to teach Google a lesson ?

~~~
ogre_magi
Damore wouldn't describe himself as conservative I think.

~~~
DanAndersen
And even if he did describe himself as such, the idea that all 'conservatives'
are free-market absolutists is strange. The sort of free-market-first small-
government-at-all-costs ideology has only in the past few decades become a
fixture of US right-wing movements.

------
vijayr
_presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide
weekly meetings._

What does this even mean? People booed simply because they were white and
male? I honestly don't get it. And who did the booing?

~~~
sergiotapia
Yes sir. It's happened all over. Even at Github:
[https://imgur.com/7YaVYUx](https://imgur.com/7YaVYUx)

------
GCU-Empiricist
Watching discovery occur on this case will be interesting.

~~~
ThrustVectoring
It'll get settled first to avoid discovery, I suspect. Class action makes
settling more awkward, but still, Google has more financial interest in
avoiding discovery than winning the case.

------
mydpy
Legal question: Most employment agreements require employees sign an
arbitration clause. Even though these have mixed enforceability, they are very
intimidating (which I believe is their intended purpose).

If you had a high-profile case like this, are you choosing to defy the
arbitration agreement? Anyone ever gone through this and willing to share the
process?

~~~
dragonwriter
California has a very high minimum standard for am arbitration agreement to
validly cover fair employment claims, including the employer covering _all_
arbitration costs (irrespective of outcome), where they would not have to
cover all court costs unless they lost and the employee was awarded costs.
_Armendariz v. Foundation Health_ , 99 Cal.Rptr.2d 745 (2000) [0]

I wouldn't be surprised if an employer chose to leave claims to which those
rules apply out of the coverage of any arbitration agreement; leaving the
employee on the hook for court costs is probably a better discouragement to
claims, especially meritless ones, than arbitration is.

[0]
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=160495945137091...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16049594513709134145&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr)

------
4WIW
Most of the discussion here focuses on The Famous Document which I think is
missing the point. TFD could be totally right, or totally wrong but the
lawsuit is about wrongful termination and discrimination and has only remote
relevance to the document.

Would be interesting to hear the opinion of the people with legal experience:
what are the merits of the lawsuit?

My personal unqualified opinion is that they will settle out of court for
wrongful termination. Since white males are not protected class, the
discrimination case is much weaker.

It is much easier for Google to settle this lawsuit than to deal with hundreds
of others they would get should they kept Damore on payroll.

I think regardless of the merits of TFD this lawsuit is a good thing because
companies would be less inclined to punish people for objecting groupthink.

~~~
gizmo686
>Since white males are not protected class.

Yes they are. Or at least whites and males are a protected class (at the suit
alledges discrimination against these classes independently, not just their
intersection).

It is true that the _intent_ of the anti discrimination laws was to protect
non-whites and females, codifying that into law would be a clear violation of
the equal protections clause and make any such law unconstitutional.

>My personal unqualified opinion is that they will settle out of court for
wrongful termination.

The wrongful termination argument defiantly seems stronger here. However, it
is worth keeping in mind that they have not settled yet. I assume Damore's
laywers would have tried settling before even filing [0]. If Google wanted to
settle they should have done it back than, before the PR hit of the suit being
filed happened. Coming up is the PR hit of discovery, which is going to bring
to light a lot of skeletons that Google would rather keep hidden. (Even if
Google did nothing wrong with regards to this case; no organization the size
of Google can go through discovery without something coming out)

[0] Assuming their actual goal is just money. They claim to be doing this to
effect change. While their public statements on motivation are highly suspect,
it is within the realm of reason that they are actually interested in this
case for the political agenda, in which case they would want to take it to
court.

------
tscs37
Reading through the court document [0] makes me deeply concerned. Some of the
stated actions, if they turn out to be true, are uncomfortable. I believe that
in a modern society like ours, such discrimination should not be necessary,
advocated for or considered in a healthy workplace. I do hope for Google that
none of this is true.

0: [[https://www.scribd.com/document/368689407/Damore-vs-
Google-C...](https://www.scribd.com/document/368689407/Damore-vs-Google-Class-
Action-Lawsuit)]

------
rendall
"James Damore, a former Google engineer who was fired in August after posting
a memo to an internal Google message board arguing that women may not be
equally represented in tech because they are biologically less capable of
engineering..."

I have stopped reading TechCrunch, ArsTechnica and Vice magazine because they
continually report this inaccurately (at best) if they are not outright lying.

Once again, Damore never says that women are biologically less capable.
Nothing like this is every stated nor even implied. In fact he goes out of his
way to say this is not so, in the memo. Frustrating.

------
oneeyedpigeon
Whatever you think of the memo, you have to be a little concerned about the
precedent this would set if companies were not allowed to discriminate based
on 'political' views. Should I be forced to hire a neo-nazi or a terrorist
sympathiser so long as they're up to the job?

~~~
zpallin
And this is the crux of the problem with his lawsuit. Political views are not
a suspect class in US law afaik.

What Damore may be trying to do is establish a legal understanding that the
political discrimination (which definitely happened) was connected to racial
discrimination (which would need to be proven in court). If Damore can do that
successfully, he should be able to win the lawsuit.

But I don't think it's possible. At least it shouldn't be possible. Like you
suggested, companies must be able to discriminate against political behavior
at work that is disruptive.

Damore's memo was released in an unruly manner that disrupted Google's bottom
line. It also brought down company morale, alienated fellow coworkers, and
caused undue internal strife. His resulting unwillingness to help contain the
drama demonstrated his lack of allegiance to the company's interest. Behavior
like this cannot be protected from termination.

~~~
mbrumlow
From my understanding he was getting death threats and misrepresented. He did
the only thing he could do and try and set his name strait.

The person who leaked it to vox should be on the chopping block.

~~~
zpallin
I agree that the person who leaked the memo against Damore's intent should be
punished similarly (and I hope Google did).

However, the death threats and misrepresentations of his text were not simply
a factor of it being published globally. From what I have heard, the
discussion was already heated inside of Google before it even got leaked.

Also, I don't think Damore was ignorant to the fact that his content was
divisive in nature. I think he knew exactly what he was trying to say and knew
what kind of reaction it would provoke.

I really think he needs to own it, and the lawsuit just proves the point to me
why he was fired. He's not a "team player"; can't own up to his mistakes.
Sure, perhaps this lawsuit will make it easier for people to discuss politics
in the workplace without being fired, but his actions telegraph his intent, at
least to me.

------
towndrunk
I find this kind of funny...

The king of search finds it too hard to compile data.

[http://fortune.com/2017/05/27/google-gender-wage-data-
report...](http://fortune.com/2017/05/27/google-gender-wage-data-reporting/)

~~~
cobookman
it wasn't that it was too hard. It was that there's a cost to compile the
data, and Google shouldn't have to pay 250k to compile a data inquery just
`because`.

Just like you aren't asked to strip search when going through TSA, `just
because`. There needs to be a legitimate reason and suspicion.

~~~
towndrunk
I think the reason was government contracts.

------
falcor84
Is there actually any US law against discrimination based on political stance?

~~~
vorotato
They aren't a federally protected group according to this list. This
particular situation though is extra hairy because even if it was religious
the offended parties could argue that a protection is not a license to
advocate discrimination.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group)

~~~
jstanley
Good job he wasn't advocating discrimination then

~~~
vorotato
He'll have to explain that to a jury, and I've read the memo that claim is not
abundantly clear.

~~~
iamatworknow
Google will settle this long before it goes to a jury.

~~~
vorotato
Argument by assertion, bold.

------
mbrumlow
It's like if any concept can't be fully realized in the size of a tweet people
are going to just misconstrue it.

Read the memo before telling people what it said...

Twitter has eroded out society.

------
Shank
Just for once, I'd like a story like this to turn out positively. Not in that
James wins or loses this lawsuit, but that something could be positively
gained in his life from this experience.

Being fired from Google has been traumatizing. He's gone farther and farther
into the "unrecoverable from a PR standpoint" zone, and that's really
horrible. 10 years from now, he's going to have a hard time finding employment
or basic living possible. He's still a human though. If he committed himself
to _being humble_ and actually trying to work on himself, it would be really
positive. Even the PR thing can go away -- everyone loves a redemption story.

The problem is that moves like this just deepen the hole. A lot of people are
cheering for his demise, and seeing that hole get bigger is eye candy. But
again, he's still a human. He still has hopes, dreams, fears, etc., just like
the rest of us. Maybe positive encouragement to change is a better route to go
than just watching him keep digging. In no way do I support his ideas -- quite
the opposite -- but is it fair to characterize someone as fully a lost cause
this early?

~~~
jacksmith21006
The right wing and egging him on did not help him. It probably contributed to
him not realizing the mistake he has made.

Saw an interview with him and saying he needed to have his GF filter what he
writes. I was thinking no that is not the issue. Instead do not share these
things if they are in your head. Swear him saying that just made it worse. He
clearly still does not get it.

~~~
OCASM
He did nothing wrong.

~~~
swingedseraph
He did several things wrong, and simply _stating_ that he did not does not
make it true.

~~~
OCASM
He did nothing wrong, and simply _stating_ that he did does not make it true.

------
lnino
The merit (or lack thereof) of his claims and views matter little in this
case. The case is visible enough and touches on politically relevant points
enough so that there will be tons of people on both sides willing to fund this
case all the way to supreme court. Then there is the problem with how damaging
discovery would be to the company. It will probably will get settled fast,
with Google paying him a few years worth of salary and a non-disclosure clause
that will make him never speak publicly about the episode again. Unless the
guy gets too greedy and push for too many figures, then it will be a shit
storm.

~~~
odorousrex
It simply comes down to money.

Damore was fired because he was bad for business. Not because he's white,
male, conservative, or the contents of his memo. Had the memo not been leaked
publicly, I have no doubt he'd still be working at Google and his memo ignored
and/or forgotten. He simply became too much of lightning rod for Google to
continue to employ him.

Google will settle for the same reason. It is better for business to pay him
off and make sure he never talks about it again, than to drag this out.

The only people who will be financially better off in this whole deal will be
the lawyers, and nothing will be resolved in reference to the larger issues
surrounding this case.

~~~
OCASM
He was fired for going against the "feminist" narrative that dominates Google.

------
jetcata
Legitimate question here, how is it ok for all the screenshots of internal
tools which the authors must have assumed would remain internal to Google to
be put into this publicly visible suit? Their names are visible and not
redacted?

Is this just a reminder to be careful what you post at work?

~~~
Jach
Generally good work advice: assume every internal email or slack IM you send
might one day be read out loud in court.

------
Idontknowmyuser
I feel like this study published in july 2017 is very relevant: "Sex
differences in brain size and general intelligence (g)"

link:
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289616302975)

Abstract Utilizing MRI and cognitive tests data from the Human Connectome
project (N = 900), sex differences in general intelligence (g) and molar brain
characteristics were examined. Total brain volume, cortical surface area, and
white and gray matter correlated 0.1–0.3 with g for both sexes, whereas
cortical thickness and gray/white matter ratio showed less consistent
associations with g. Males displayed higher scores on most of the brain
characteristics, even after correcting for body size, and also scored
approximately one fourth of a standard deviation higher on g. Mediation
analyses and the Method of Correlated Vectors both indicated that the sex
difference in g is mediated by general brain characteristics. Selecting a
subsample of males and females who were matched on g further suggest that
larger brains, on average, lead to higher g, whereas similar levels of g do
not necessarily imply equal brain sizes.

Highlights • Sex differences in brain morphology and general intelligence were
examined.

• MRI and test data of the Human connectome project were used (N = 896)

• Males and females differed in total brain size, gray, and white matter
volumes

• The male-female difference in general intelligence, g, was d = 0.25.

• Sex differences in brain morphology mediated the sex difference in g.

~~~
novia
Do we really need to rehash the whole phrenology period of our history?

~~~
Idontknowmyuser
wait so a correlation between brain size and "generral intelligence score (g)"
is phrenology? don't you feel like your mispresenting the study?

~~~
novia
Phrenology was used to justify pre-existing racism.

All these studies that show that men are naturally more intelligent because
their brains are larger amount to the same thing, but racism is out of vogue,
so let's use it to justify pre-existing sexism this time.

If 3 women published a scientific paper with the conclusion, "girls rule, boys
drool," you wouldn't feel at least a little suspicious of the authors'
intentions?

~~~
Idontknowmyuser
do you believe that the authors falsified their findings?

and also the idea is not to justify sexism, but to provide another possible
reason for why a trend seems to perssist after apparent bias is eliminated.
This is in response to the idea that oppression is somehow responsible for
100% of the gender-ratio gap.

I don't claim that biological reasons are the only reasons but I stress that
they do in fact exist and that a violent response to suggesting that they
might exist is not normal.

To use this studies to be sexist, is the wrong idea ,as the memo's author
explained, because there is overlap between the populations and while on
average one is better (in that respective function) then the other, that does
not preclude that someone from the second group is better then someone one the
first.

In other words, the result on hiring based on merit alone is better then both:
\- hiring only males \- hiring based on prescribed gender quotas.

and by the way, there is studies that indicate that woman are better at
empathy ( a sign of emotional intelligence):
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19476221)

------
282883392
Are there (in part) biological reasons for the differences in behavior between
men and women? Clearly there are sociological differences. Damore clearly did
not separate the two ideas or their relative impact on the issue, which led to
the enormous amount of publicity.

The idea that the tech industry needs to change their approach to
incentivizing women to the workplace still stands regardless.

------
johan_larson
I think this lawsuit is a sign that Google's management miscalculated. The
last thing they wanted was for this issue to drag on. They don't want to be on
the front lines of the culture war. They want to build great things and make
piles of money.

------
whack
_"...employees of Google who’ve been discriminated against due to their
“perceived conservative political views by Google_"

Is that really illegal? If someone was not hired on account of his being a
White supremacist, would he have any basis for a lawsuit?

~~~
gnicholas
In California, yes. See section 4 of:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/201...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-
conspiracy/wp/2014/05/05/does-california-law-protect-employee-speech-hostile-
to-homosexuality-as-well-as-employee-speech-that-defends-
homosexuality/?utm_term=.3a24b7c71215)

~~~
whack
Interesting. I guess that law would have protected both Brenden Eich and
Donald Sterling, if they had been fired during their respective controversies.

To anyone assuming that I'm opposed to such a law: you're wrong. I've written
in favor of such laws in the past, and think they should be strengthened even
further. Assuming of course that they are used to protect all political
opinions, both left wing and right.

------
ryan_j_naughton
The lawsuit says he was discriminated against not only for being a white male
but also "discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative
political views by Google".

Discriminating against someone for their political beliefs is not illegal.
Federally political affiliation is not a protected group and in California
apparently 'political affiliation' is according to wikipedia[1] however I
couldn't find the relevant section of the CA statute on the Fair Employment
and Housing Act (FEHA) of CA[2].

If he was discriminated against because of his race or gender, then that is a
problem. But firing him for having conservative views should be entirely
valid. I am not saying that believe firms SHOULD fire people who have X view
or Y view so much as they should have the right to.

While we can debate the merits of James' individual views, let's take a more
extreme example. If an individual regularly spouted off white supremacist and
neo-NAZI views, I don't think any of us would have a problem with a firm
firing that co-worker. Firms are trying to create a culture that aligns with
their objectives and enhances employee/workplace happiness and harmony. Some
views are antithetical to that.

Furthermore, we can back away from such extreme views and still find cases
where it would be legitimate to make decisions based on individual's views and
perspectives. If you owned a company focused on selling sustainably sourced,
carbon neutral products. Hiring a sales person who does not believe in climate
change and is actively hostile the the concept of environmentalism would be a
bad idea. It is entirely logical to hire/fire people based on non-religious
beliefs.

Beliefs are choices individuals make, and thus they should be judged by their
choices.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_discrimination_law_in_the_United_States#State_law)
[2]
[https://web.archive.org/web/20160909163923/http://www.dfeh.c...](https://web.archive.org/web/20160909163923/http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/Publications_FEHADescr.htm)

~~~
mrebus
>Discriminating against someone for their political beliefs is not illegal

In Cali it is. These laws were enacted in the 30/40s when people were
blacklisted for being Commies.

[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101)
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102)

It would be interesting if this goes to the supreme court and the conservative
court rules these laws unconstitutional on freedom of association grounds.

------
badloginagain
Just to clarify, is he stating he was fired due to his gender/political views?
I would assume the literal army of attorneys will point to various violations
of Code of Conduct or Employment Agreement Damore undoubtedly broke.

He openly published a memo condemning his employer, tarnishing the brand and
bringing the company under considerable negative press. I figure there must be
some clause in any employment agreement stating that you can't actively cause
damage to the company.

Edit: Looks like the memo wasn't intentionally released to the public, but it
still caused damage. If I drop tables unintentionally on production, I'm not
surprised if I'm fired- even if it was an accident.

~~~
bzbarsky
OK, but continuing with your analogy, what about if you write a script that
drops tables from a database it's pointed to, for internal use, then someone
else runs it against the production server? And then you, not whoever ran it,
get fired.

~~~
swingedseraph
The analogy is flawed.

He did not write a piece of software, he wrote a piece of rhetoric which had
very little to do with reality and had a lot to do with making people dislike
Google and its policies.

I also write a lot of rhetoric designed to do that. The difference is I'm not
a Google employee. Were I, I would fully expect to be fired, regardless of
what I did with that writing (except perhaps leave it unreleased on my home
computer, or write it to /dev/null).

~~~
bzbarsky
Of course the analogy is flawed. The analogy I was replying to is even more
flawed. ;)

------
balls187
Are White Men really booed during company meetings?

~~~
ryanbrunner
I think this is maybe what the suit is referring to:
[https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950452593565798400](https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950452593565798400)

The person in question is talking about what they presented at a meeting, but
I don't think it should be interpreted that the booing actually occurred
during the meeting itself. In any case, it's not really the best look, but the
suit is mischaracterizing it IMO.

------
vanattab
I hope he does not settle as a matter of principle.

~~~
dmourati
I agree. He needs to lose on the merits and walk away with nothing.

------
Y_Y
I wonder if there should be a court that decides what is ethical and what
isn't (according to the prevailing view of the society) as opposed to the
current system where all you can do is try to right wrongs or punish actual
harms to society.

------
mikeryan
Will watch this with interest AFAIK discriminating against conservative white
men isn’t illegal. It’s not a protected class. There must be some twist here.

~~~
dmitrygr
In California, workplace discrimination due to politics _is_ illegal [1]

In USA, discrimination due to sex _is_ illegal.

[1]
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102&lawCode=LAB)

~~~
vorotato
Yes, discrimination against men, and or white people is illegal. They can show
though that they hire plenty of white men. You are correct in California you
cannot discriminate against employees due to politics, however I'm sure they'd
be able to show they hire plenty of republicans. It is also an uphill battle
for Damore since he'd basically be claiming that he was discriminated against
at the same time as arguing that they shouldn't do more to balance the
apparent discrimination against women. Whether or not any of that is true,
it's going to be a hard sell to a California jury

~~~
dmitrygr
> however I'm sure they'd be able to show they hire plenty of republicans

Discrimination is not just about hiring but also about workplace comfort. And
let me tell you, being a non-democrat at google is _NOT_ comfortable! VERY not
comfortable!

~~~
vorotato
IANAL, but as I understand it, it depends on what causes the discomfort. If
your discomfort comes from the existence of other protected classes, like a
baptist in a den of atheists then it's tough beans. If however you can
evidence that they've created a hostile environment for you outside of your
relation to other protected classes then yes that makes sense.

------
cratermoon
Damore's name will now go in the history books along with such luminaries as
Allan Bakke, Cheryl Hopwood, and Abigail Fisher.

~~~
jxramos
Placing Supreme Court bets eh?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v._Bakke)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hopwood_v._Texas)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_v._University_of_Texas_\(2016\))

------
lurr
I wonder how much evidence google has of people who were pissed off by
Damore's memo.

Cause really, that's all it should take. "He made his continued employment
here impossible because he pissed off his coworkers". Sounds like a completely
valid reason to fire me.

~~~
OCASM
Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their own
emotions? "He's saying things we don't like! Fire him!" That doesn't seem
valid to me.

~~~
chillacy
> Is Damore responsible for the failure of some of people in managing their
> own emotions?

That line of stoic reasoning really justifies anything though. Like, my co-
workers should manage their anxiety just because I like to work with a firearm
strapped to my chest and 2 grenades on my desk.

~~~
OCASM
Anxiety over close proximity to explosives seems justified. Anxiety over
somebody stating ideas you simply disagree with doesn't.

~~~
chillacy
There are disagreeable ideas that nobody has anxiety over though, so it's not
just that.

But I think you can see that too. If you assume his ideas are correct:

1\. His letter becomes well received, my employer changes their hiring
policies

2\. The current gender ratio was propped by non-gender-neutral hiring
practices, without them, that will change back in-line to the base rate

3\. My job is in danger

Is anxiety over losing one's job justified?

Or, another line:

1\. His letter is well received, but my employer doesn't change their hiring
policies

2\. My co-workers now think that I have my job not because I earned it but
because of the non-gender-neutral hiring practices

3\. My job is in danger

I can produce more, but at the end of the day they all threaten either status
or jobs, so I don't fault why people would defend their interests with all
their effort.

~~~
OCASM
Being anxious about losing your job doesn't justify getting somebody else
fired. Specially through vile means such as character assassination.

Edit: Besides, those same arguments apply against the diversity advocates.
They openly claim that white men dominate the industry because of sexism, that
they don't hold their positions because of merit but because of bias. They're
guilty of the same crime they accuse Damore of committing.

~~~
chillacy
I will agree that getting someone else fired for your own benefit is deeply
selfish, but I also expect people to fight for their own interests when
livelihood is on the line. And a job is closer to 'food on the table' than
'new discount TV on black friday' (it's closer to the bottom of maslov's
hierarchy).

------
myaso
He got crucified because he didn't make anybody laugh -- now he will be
paraded around as a poster boy for the alt-right or w/e. Aren't autistic
traits highly prelevant in programmers? Isn't it also true that those traits
will show up much more often in men compared to women -- a token factoid
curtesy of wikipedia. Also anecdotally, how many male devs do I know that
started hacking at 13 -- _a lot_. How many women? Personally none, but I know
colah from Google Brain is one example, and a rather extreme data point too --
at the extreme end of the scale it's irrelevant anyways, a successful female
comp sci prof or a female researcher will be _picked_. Unless there is some
extremely good reason like _Google drained all the capable men already out of
the ecosystem_ there doesn't seem to be rational reason to explicitly optimize
their hiring pipeline for the wrong demographic -- maybe they don't optimize
it like that, but a lot of people have the _perception_ that they do which
will get you the same result in the end.

Update: one moment this gets up voted and the next moment it gets down voted
and this repeats, is anybody willing to actually argue? Call my bs, I have
thick skin.

------
jacksmith21006
Why does the right wing embrace Damore instead of being pissed at him?

There are people that might generalize and think all right wing people feel
this way about women.

I have right wing friends and know that is not true but others might.

Instead Damore has become some kind of right wing matre which seems really
strange.

------
jacksmith21006
The most fascinating part of all of this is who thought up making it a social
justice issue? Gen up the right wing? Also it is really that easy to
manipulate them?

I mean we have an employee who does not work in HR and I do not think a
manager working on something that has nothing to do with their job. Something
people are fired for everyday.

Then on top is negative no matter how you look at it towards other employees
that makes it impossible to keep and have him on a team. Double firable
offence and Google would be wrong not have.

Then it is freaking California where the law is in the employer side.

But somehow it has become some weird rally call for the alt right and the
abuse of white guys which I am actually am one of.

Someone should write a book. It is just insane how easily some are being
manipulated. But there must be something deeper inside that makes it this easy
that for some reason I am missing as a white guy.

Why do we have angry white guys? Why not me?

------
alvil
Go for it.

------
MBCook
I hope he finds some right-wing outlet to hire him, because at this point it
seems like he’s radioactive waste and no real company is going to hire him
ever again.

~~~
jacksmith21006
Kind to have to be a right wing organization he is not working along side of
women. You do have to think of everyone on your team including the women.

~~~
ntuch
> not working along side of women Women able to read and comprehend at high
> school level would have no problem working along side him.

------
bsaul
And now the boomerang is coming back... But judging by the reactions here i
see asking for the right to express complexity isn't always welcome when it
comes against the moral values of the day.

(and just to make sure : people should be treated just great even if they're
different, meaning they have different abilities somehow, somewhere, and we
don't know them all because science isn't advanced enough yet to make any kind
of definitive statement).

EDIT : And for those with a great desire of flaming people in public, i
suggest tracking people that :

\- don't believe climate change is due to human activity

\- don't believe public social security should cover every expense

\- don't like electric cars, or keep driving SUVs

\- have been found watching (racial) porn at the office

\- have made any kind of bad joke on any minority

\- have made public declaration (at the office cafetaria to his neighbor)
supporting any decision by president Trump.

\- has bought a gun for his home

\- think Google should pay its taxes. Oh no, wait this one is still too
controversial.

~~~
daseiner1
> have been found watching (racial) porn at the office

pretty sure we don’t want anyone watching any sort of porn at the office

------
vorotato
A fool and his money are soon parted.

~~~
lr4444lr
You really think the firm is taking an upfront fee or retainer for this? I
assume they are expecting a settlement from Google/Alphabet so that the
company can put an end to this PR nightmare once and for all, from which they
will take a cut.

~~~
taytus
Google's PR Nightmare? Honest question: Don't you think that the one with the
PR nightmare is Damore?

~~~
oh_sigh
He's beloved by a certain right-leaning or libertarian bent portion of the
tech world, and everyone else except for maybe Google's lawyers have forgotten
about him. So it seems like he is in a better place now than simply being a
midlevel employee in MegaCorp

~~~
vorotato
Yes from a certain angle it's a PR win/win. However if he actually pursues a
lawsuit with his money he's with near certainty going to be the loser.

~~~
oh_sigh
I really doubt it is with his own money. Google pays pretty well, but he was
only employed for a couple of years outside of school, so I doubt he has
millions just sitting around. Almost certainly this case is taken on a
contingency basis or they are using crowdsourced funds.

~~~
vorotato
I suppose if it's crowd sourced he has no choice but to tilt at windmills.

------
petraeus
thank you hacker news randoms for telling me what my opinion is on james
danmore because with my finite and trivial amount of wisdom I cannot possibly
be depended on to form my own thoughts of a classic white racist screaming
about how oppressed white hetro males are in a social culture shaped by 1000
years of white dominance _roll-eyes_

~~~
pluto9
_a social culture shaped by 1000 years of white dominance_

Every culture is shaped by the people it's comprised of _by definition_. Do
you have a problem with the fact that Chinese culture is "shaped by 1000 years
of Chinese dominance"?

------
azr79
As a white male, good for him

~~~
dang
Please don't post unsubstantive comments here. Also, we ban accounts for race
war, which this arguably is.

------
dguaraglia
Brace in for the brigading. I'm flagging this article because it always
results in a bunch of trolling rather than any substantial discussion.

~~~
viridian
I personally hope we can avoid this attitude by and large on HN. The idea that
this community needs to be proactively stopped from discussing a topic because
a small subgroup decides that the larger community can't handle it maturely
seems to be an abuse of flagging, to me.

