That is, "really read" a select paragraph or two. Enough to make a basic determination as to what he's driving at -- and to note that we've seen variants of this message from other sources, before -- and make a decision about how much of one's attention resources it merits, moving forward -- accordingly.
As one does with any rant, or other poorly thought-out screed.
Crazy.
Did you ever actually read L. Ron Hubbard's seminal work, Dianetics? I mean, really read it? Cover-to-cover?
No, you say? And yet you dismiss it?
That's crazy.
I don't dismiss it because I have no idea what it's about. I don't approve of it either, for the exact same reasons.
Anyhow: You're comparing reading less than 10 pages of large text with generous spacing and numerous illustrations to end-to-end reading a full book almost 500 pages long.
You can't be serious.
The church he founded was one of the major annoyances of the latter half of the 20th century. If you're interested in the general history of Really Bad Ideas (and how they draw otherwise warm sensitive, intelligent people into their fold), you might want to look into it.
Let's just say I've considered the works of a lot cranks and crackpots, over the years - and a lot of viewpoints that, while not quite in that category, are just muddled and inflammatory and don't have a lot to offer to the discussion. Enough to develop a pretty reliable sense of "smell" as to whether a given piece of work merits further exploration beyond a few paragraphs or so.
So whether or not one thinks he should be fired for it -- his "manifesto" definitely does not pass that smell test.
That's my view. If you view his work differently, that's fine for you.
Is that like, a hobby? And by "considered", do you mean you read them, or skimmed them, or just heard about them from uptight censorious authoritarians on the internet?
Actually it was, for a while. And I actually did read a lot of these works; and considered their points, very carefully; and debated them with their adherents, very patiently and thoughtfully.
Until I figured out what general superstructure of thought patterns was behind their arguments (which mostly boil down to: cherry picking; what-about-ism; and "authority, authority authority") -- and moved on other things.
It was an internal memo in good civil form posted internally opening to an internal debate on a subject related to work conditions.
Despite Gizmodo's obvious attempt to frame it as such, it was not posted as a revolutionary manifesto.
It was public only when leaked by someone else. Notice how that person has not been fired.
> addresses sensitive and controversial issues.
So if a company makes a sensitive and controversial issue an internal policy, nobody should be allowed to question it? Really?
Are you still confident in your judgment?
Most likely because, whether the author intended it that way or not, the memo was draft in a way that was pretty much guaranteed to push people's buttons. And when people -- particularly very smart people who have a lot more important things to do with their time -- feel their buttons being pushed, they tend to react, and get to the root of the matter very quickly.
And that's probably OK and kind of expected. To me what was interesting was that even the CEO had to not only denounce it, but also cut his vacation short to hold a staff town-hall.