happyguy43

Nowhere is it implied that people going through rough patches will be judged for poor performance and “booted out the door.” The point is that people should be setting expectations ahead of time and will be held accountable for the expectations they set.

There is ample room in a high-performing workplace for the rare rough patch, just needs to be done in a way that optimally allows the team to minimize the disruption.

The main condition is that rare rough patches should be rare. Obviously people who constantly go through rough patches can not be expected to perform highly and are not appropriate employees in a high performing work environment.

It did give me pause, then it gave me concern, then it fizzled into lack of surprise.

Damore lost the PR battle long ago. PR justice, while disheartening, isn’t anything new. Challengers to popular ideology are never right at first, but he’ll be right eventually. One day it’ll be more faux pas to assume there are zero average personality differences between the sexes.

I do disagree. This is on multiple thorough readings of his memo and a sound mind. He never advocates for Google to discriminate against anyone in his memo, nor does he advocate for Google to not prioritize diversity. There is no quote in his original memo to prove otherwise, legal opinion notwithstanding.

This is well argued but some of the assumptions are false.

1) Damore never argued men were better suited to software engineering than women.

2) Damore never argued for google to violate EEO laws, and in fact it’s the opposite.

It’s very sad to me that there is such widespread misinterpretation of Damore’s nuance in his memo. In every possible factual way it’s a pro-diversity memo, but because it cites research on the average personality differences amongst men and women (which are 100% true), he gets crucified as a bigot and an anti-diversity zealot.

Furthermore, when it comes to matters such as these, “belief” should not play a substantial role. We’ve already proven that men and women don’t differ much on intelligence. No need to believe one way or another.

Maybe the growth of meta posts is a weed you are fertilizing yourself.

It goes both ways. Have you had the experience of being shadow banned unfairly? If not maybe consider what you’re missing. Maybe listen to your users.

I whole-heartedly agree with you. I’ve been restricted on HN for much less. My posts are always respectful and encourage productive dialogue, yet I believe I’m perceived as a troll because I’m direct or maybe aggressive. Again, I’m never disrespectful but I’m willing to directly challenge incorrect thinking, you can check my history for yourself.

The regulation on style instead of substance on this site really make me question their commitment to intellectual / productive conversation.

Sometimes I wonder how long someone like Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman, or Theo de Raadt would last on this site. I don’t think very long. A site that would ban the most influential hackers of our day simply for bad etiquette doesn’t really seem like a site for hackers.