Adding to this; we should bear in mind that while nobody specific speaks for "the left"'s moral judgments, at least some people literally won't allow him to speak.
Secondly, he was never trying to be a martyr and we shouldn't expect him to be one. He was posting a controversial opinion on a message board marked for controversial opinion. He was clearly putting in a solid attempt to be objective and to employ facts and evidence. He has some academic exposure to the fields he was talking about.
He didn't expect to be targeted the way he was; he likely wasn't trying to set himself up as a hero of free speech; and he doesn't have to do a walk of shame through hostile talk shows to justify his intentions if he doesn't feel like taking the (unjustified) heat.
I don't know what he expected, but that was stupid.
Damore himself said he wanted to go on friendly media to do interviews, not that other media wouldn't have him.
I'm pretty sure this is textbook slippery slope fallacy
Why also nobody is going to hire him.
To my knowledge, Damore has not been accused of any crime.
> was "creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities",
No, only an employer can do that. Damore might have engaged in actions in the workplace that, in context, made it an unacceptable risk that by continuing to employ him Google would risk creating a hostile work environment for women and/or other protected classes.
> He was fired for challenging (an anti-white, anti-male, anti-conservative) political orthodoxy, and that's illegal in California.
Advocating change to corporate, rather than public, policy does not seem to be even remotely “political activity”, which is what California law actually protects, not that the California law would be valid if and to the extent it required corporations to undertake actions prohibited by federal law.
It's a figure of speech; I wasn't referring to a legal crime.
> No, only an employer can do that. Damore might have engaged in actions in the workplace that, in context, made it an unacceptable risk that by continuing to employ him Google would risk creating a hostile work environment for women and/or other protected classes.
I agree. I'm just trying to make sense of the parent's claim that Damore's behavior constitutes a "hostile work environment".
> Advocating change to corporate, rather than public, policy does not seem to be even remotely “political activity”, which is what California law actually protects.
My argument is that Google made inferences about his public policy beliefs based on his "memo", and fired him for those inferences. In other words, they inferred that he was conservative, and fired him because they felt his conservatism was too much a threat. Whether or not his speech is protected under California law is up to the courts.
Never mind that firing someone for innocuous (if misguided) corporate policy improvements is still morally indefensible.
Well, it's your assertion. I don't see an argument supporting it.
EDIT: Removed snarkiness.
I corrected my previous comment.
It's like the people on the right saying Edward Snowden is obviously a traitor/spy because he went to Russia. Uhhh... something very obvious is being ignored there.
Also, come on ... Joe Rogan is definitely not right-wing. Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin do not self-identify as right-wing. And your [1] just seems a little extreme. "The far right is just a slip away from the reasonable right, therefore the reasonable right is dangerous?" But you don't apply that same idea to the left? Why not?
The real pattern here is that he went to the shows that would have him as a guest for reasonable discussion.