you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]the_nybbler 12 insightful - 2 fun12 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

What it amounts to is there are endless procedural/technical barriers to getting something through the courts, and endless ways around them if the courts are sympathetic to the claim. Courts will accept discrimination claims from some people (women and minorities) but not others. If you look at any given case in isolation and are completely disingenous, you can find a "neutral" reason why it was decided the way it was or why it didn't go forward.

But the pattern is so clear that everyone knows you can get away with blatant discrimination against whites, Asians, and/or males, including openly having job openings they are not eligible for, or entire publicly funded schools which exclude them. And conversely, that even the mildest hint of anything negative towards a favored group is enough for a lawsuit. The neutrality of the statute simply doesn't matter given the mendaciousness of the judges.

[–]JasonCarswell 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Wisdom! Saved.

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You make some good points... however the article said there is no response from Damore. Doesn't that imply there was a financial agreement to motivate him to move on?

If he was just blown off by the court... I'd assume he'd say something about it.

[–]the_nybbler 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Doesn't that imply there was a financial agreement to motivate him to move on?

No, just the employment contract with Google which specifies arbitration, and then the arbiters imposing silence.