I helped Google screw over James Damore

This reads like a creative writing exercise from the same people who were hurling violent abuse on social media at (ex-)SV people, mainly women and people of colour, who spoke out about abuse and similar attitudes they'd experienced in SV/tech in general.

Zero sources, zero verification: This isn't HN-level content.

https://www.reddit.com/user/James_Damore "Whoah, this would explain a lot.

I can't verify its authenticity, but the OP is correct that I was one of about 100 employees that knew about Dragonfly. I also did report several legal issues in Search that they probably haven't fixed. Other parts of the post include knowledge that only a Googler would know.

u/TiredOfLying4Google please contact my lawyer, Harmeet Dhillon."

----

https://www.reddit.com/user/Humble_Explanation "I'm a Googler and can confirm what the OP has said about Memegen, Damore's performance and knowledge of Dragonfly, and the BS reasons given for cancelling the Town Hall."

i wonder just how legit this is, if it is really legit, then damn this exposes alot.

To the OP on reddit - when it really mattered how come you did nothing?

I am glad I read this. More people need to be less naive about the way Silicon Valley really works.

We have this idealistic view of SV compared to the rest of the world.

SV has humans being nice to other humans.

SV has humans screwing over other humans.

Same as in every other part of the world.

Can't believe it solely based on the Reddit post. Needs proof.

Can someone please update me on the controversy surrounding Damore? The facts I know (which may not be correct, I'd like correction here) are that he circulated a memo which effectively argued against affirmative action (apparently without looking at the arguments for or against it, since he didn't cite anything to that end, not even the SEP article[0]) and justified this by saying that the distribution of preferences and abilities is due to biological differences between men and women, and used some pop-sci articles to bolster the claim.

But the content of the memo isn't really concerning (as much as it should be discussed), I'm more interested in the grounds for firing him, since it's also clear that what he claimed to be doing ("just wanting to start a discussion") could have been accomplished in a myriad of other ways, and the way in which it's done is quite detached from the content of what's being said; it may be true that someone is stupid, for instance, but it's another matter to actually be saying it. It's also inappropriate, for instance, for a teacher to solicit sex from a student in exchange for better grades, but it may be appropriate for the teacher to publish in a news article saying he doesn't think there's anything wrong with sleeping with students in exchange for grades. If the mode of presentation was inappropriate (and seemingly misaligned with what he claimed to want to do), was he screwed over when he was fired, or could it be justified?

[0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/

[citation needed]