>ostracizing a sizable part of Google's workforce by implying they are undeserving of their jobs.

He didn't. The only one who was (literally) ostracized was Damore.

>consequences of openly questioning corporate policies.

Well, the policy was (supposedly) that you could in fact question corporate policies. Of course 'everyone knew' that it was bullshit, but at least now it's been proven and thrown into public for all to see.

I'm fine with a company not wanting openness, less so with such a company pretending to want openness. If Google subscribes to modern-day Lysenkoism (because they think it'll get them more profit) then that is their right, but at least quit the whole pretense and be honest about it: "Our company is about making money, not truth, not justice, not the betterment of society, but money, money, money."

But of course, that gets you less starry-eyed young minds than the "Don't be Evil" of yesteryear, so it's understandable they keep the mask on. Corporations are sociopaths.

> Of course 'everyone knew' that it was bullshit,

Up until it went viral and everybody with a computer read it, Google was mostly ignoring it. When it leaked outside the company, it could no longer be ignored because it was damaging the company's reputation.

Yes, and that is the problem. The use of public shaming to silence opponents (or to force their employers to fire them). The ones wielding this cudgel like to say "Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences!", but this sort of suppression of speech will have consequences as well.

Nobody "used" public shaming to silence anyone. It was Google's reputation as a nice place to work that was tarnished when it became public knowledge Google employed people who not only thought a large number of his colleagues were not adequate to be his colleagues (and he did say as much when he mentioned that the bar was being lowered in name of diversity) and were only hired because they had the right genitalia, but thought it'd be a good idea to share this belief. Some people will doubtlessly find it insulting.

For anyone who hasn't read the actual memo yet, what he did say was "Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate". That's not anywhere near "a large number of his colleagues were not adequate to be his colleagues" or "were only hired because they had the right genitalia". All it means is that a larger share of qualified white/asian/indian male candidates get rejected, compared to qualified diversity candidates. Anyone claiming otherwise is blinded by outrage.

Yes, Adria Richards can probably tell you about how this suppression of speech works. She was fired when the internet got angry that she publicly complained about a joke that she felt was offensive, and literally DDOSed her employer until they let her go.

Correct, her publicly shaming someone (which caused that person to be fired) backfired spectacularly (and led to her being fired). That's what I meant by this sort of suppression having consequences of their own. No one won anything.

You mean when she violated the code of conduct that she was claiming for herself, by engaging in harassing photography?

Disguising their attacks as a defense, and blowback as an attack is a staple of the progressive playbook by now. Once you tease apart actual cause and effect in these situations, the presupposed victim and oppressor labels tend to fall apart. Especially when one side gets uncritical media coverage across the board.

It didn't seem to prevent her from making a career out of her status as a victim either. Not so much for the person she got fired. Which makes it all the more unpalatable that this agenda is often pushed under the guise of accountability.

It's the first I've heard of the DDoS though. Got a source on that?

But aside from the sources - Damore was fired when he violated a code of conduct by complaining about diversity. Richards was fired when she violated a code of conduct by complaining about jokes that offended her. They are pretty analogous situations if you're capable of looking at them in the abstract. It turns out that mass internet outrage as coercion is a staple of pretty much everyone's playbook, and it is disingenous at best to recognize it only when it is done by people you disagree with.

What is disingenuous is labeling a statement that starts with the words "I support diversity and inclusion" as being against diversity. Claiming he violated a code of conduct by doing so requires myopia of the highest degree.

Second, you are failing to distinguish between mass coercion by media based on lies, with a popular backlash based on an accurate account of the facts. Richards was in developer relations and made a giant stink when she demonstrated being unable to relate to developers.

a) "I'm not disagreeing with you, but a careful examination of the facts seems to say that you're wrong". Can that statement be described as disagreeing with you or not?

b) Damore wrote the memo that caused the backlash, not the media.

yes, it was all over the discussion at the time and there's a ton of articles about it at https://www.google.com/search?q=adria+richards+ddos

Adria Richards was employed as a "developer evangelist". Some evangelists are expected to tell the world around them to repent and be converted, it is true. But developer evangelists I don't think fit that job description.