> Larry Page and Sergey Brin ... had designed their company's famously open culture to facilitate free thinking. Employees were “obligated to dissent” if they saw something they disagreed with, and they were encouraged to “bring their whole selves” to work rather than check their politics and personal lives at the door.

Seems like James Damore took their advice.

Yes. Google told people that they have a free thinking culture. That does not mean they have a free thinking culture.

There's some quote (I thought it was Peter Thiel but can't find it now) along the lines of "when they mention how important diversity is, ask them how many conservatives there are" at silicon valley tech companies.

Yes. What is your point? Must you either be in favor of James Damore and against these Googlers who are trying to organize the workplace or vice versa? Can't everyone get to share their political views and also keep their jobs?

In my experience you can share your views in Google as long as everyone around you shares those views.

I'm not sure what you mean. I wasn't trying to imply any point beyond that James Damore followed Page's and Brin's advice and was fired for it.

> Can't everyone get to share their political views and also keep their jobs?

I think that "bring your whole self" assumed that the politics everyone would talk about would be politics in the general, diffuse, societal sense. The proper scope of government, the merits of particular policies and candidates, how to solve problems X and Y.

Politics in the sense of judging on who deserves to work at Google, or who is underserving, which directly implies that certain Googlers would be unfit to be there under different regimes, isn't outward-facing. It directly hurts peers. A policy which evicts someone for introducing the notion that some Googlers are unfit to be Googlers will also selectively hurt some folks at Google for speaking their mind.

Google can't have it both ways. I think they made the better choice. I'd rather treat my coworkers compassionately, think of them as humans with complex natures, than to be "right" and "meritocratic" and make them feel threatened and unworthy.

It's been years now since "don't be evil" got deleted.

The cultures of companies change as they grow and as outside cultures change. Especially one closely connected to internet culture, which is way more uncivil and uncompromising against dissenting opinions.

I don't have a problem with that. And I didn't even really mean that to be any sort of judgement. It's just a little difficult to convey that, given the phrase involved.