> the memo makes a whole case... how "leftists" are violent.
Which isn't true.
Or accusing "PC authoritarians" of stifling diversity of opinion? (violence is not just punching people)
Or accusing "the Left" of denying science regarding biological differences between individuals? (there's a huge difference between "taking with a grain of salt, considering there's a lot of societal factors that might play a bigger role" and "denying")
Damore does a really good job of adding a lot of disclaimers and caveat emptors around a lot of his arguments, but he really didn't put that much effort into hiding his derision for "the Left."
> So you don't think that singling out "leftist violence" in events where there were "alt-right violence" is choosing one side?
James's discussion of left violence is because Google is a left wing company.
If Google was a right wing company, then saying "Google has mainly right wing politics but has avoided the violence associated with far right groups" would indeed by apt.
> While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.
What he does is list "compassion for the weak" as a "left bias". That's not necessarily a statement in support of leftist ideals when combined with this two assertions:
> In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females.
> The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause
(Which, BTW, is right before the first thing I quoted.)