What would you think about that?
Beyond that, this whole discussion plays as part of the white supremacist narrative - do away with democracy and rights, including freedom of the press, because those things cause white supremacists to lose. But find reasonable-sounding arguments so that political oppression sounds like something to discuss. Which is what Damore tried to do with scientific citations and his posture as a victim - a white male with Harvard and Google on his resume.
It's hard to believe you aren't familiar with the white supremacist narrative, including 'reasonably' discussing political oppression, and or that you are unaware that the discussion above fits it well.
And what does him being white or a Harvard graduate have anything to with it? Do you seriously doubt that the dishonest reporting around what he said has ruined his chance at having a normal career in the tech industry? White Harvard graduates are not immune from the obstacles of life, are not incapable of being victims of wrongdoing.
Distrust of the news media and a desire for accountability aren't a "white supremacist" narrative. (And neither is skepticism of third-wave feminism, for that matter). It was only 8 years ago when the Obama administration tried to shut Fox News out from access to the White House and distrust of the media has been a thoughtful leftist talking point forever too (see Noam Chomsky).
You're doing what I've noticed a lot of dishonest partisans doing lately: throwing the phrase 'white supremacist' around when talking about your political opponents. It's really no different than what McCarthy did when he attacked anyone with left wing views as a communist, with an eye to getting them shunned from public life.
The white male supremacist narrative of their victimization, like the one in the parent, is what I was describing further up the thread.
All I can comment on are the words on the page and that's all anyone should be commenting on. The words fit the narrative I described.
[0] Cool title; don't you think? Another attempt to normalize evil: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/james-damore-says-the-qui...
[1] not a pejorative, but a term of art
If a news publication lied about him then Damore does indeed have legal recourse. People, including public figures, sue news publications all the time, and some win.
Examples: One reason the Harvey Weinstein story didn't get published for so long, despite the fact that he's clearly a public figure and many journalists investigated it over the years, is that there wasn't sufficient basis for the story to win in court if Weisenstein sued. You'll also recall that Hulk Hogan and Peter Thiel actually put Gawker out of business.
In journalism trade publications,[0] you can read that lawsuits are a big concern and considered a threat to the free press. I recently read that small news organizations can't publish investigations of wealthy people and organizations because, true or false, they cannot afford a legal defense. That is a threat to democracy.
So Damore could sue if there was defamation (or slander or libel; I'm not sure of the distinction); why didn't he? Every target of an investigation tries to attack the media now; it's standard operating procedure, and Damore does nothing to distinguish himself. Why should I believe Damore? (This part of the discussion needs facts to back up claims.)
Also, I'd be very careful about bringing down the news media when it takes down people we like; it's an essential institution that we need. If the rich and powerful can silence them, it would cripple democracy and liberty.
> I can't imagine a more malicious and intentional misrepresentation
It would be great to avoid hyperbole; it helps an intelligent discussion