Cancel culture will make racism and sexism worse. Even the most well-intentioned will fail to learn when they are afraid of expressing the wrong answer.
Try to teach someone mathematics where every time they get the wrong answer, they get shocked. Not a good learning environment.
And that's exactly what we have now. Repeat a few buzzwords and you are safe. But when problems manifest in a new way, you won't be able to understand or correct them because you don't really understand.
Being wrong is part of the path to being right. If you are cancelled for being wrong, you'll never be right. You'll just have to be quiet.
Well put.
Furthermore people are actually acting tribally. They cancel people on the other side for the same behavior that they are ignoring from people on their side.
Let's assume - for the sake of the argument - scientists have managed to scientifically prove some unpopular theory. Pick your favorite one: working women do not benefit the society, some races are smarter on average than others or - god forbid - vaccines cause autism.
What's next? What are we going to do with these results?
P. S. And for those looking to reply "this cannot happen because it can never happen" - remember, this is just a mental exercise.
(EDIT)
> What are we going to do with these results?
Okay, now I know. We'll just downvote them.
And then, one random saturday (in my country atleast), masks became mandatory, along with gloves to enter the stores. Some media outlets have even removed the previous newsstories (not edit and say "whoops, now we know better", but remove completely), and everybody acts as if that didn't happen.
Same with trump + wuhan lab theory... at first it was a bannable offence on facebook to promote such idea... and now after trump, there are serious inquiries if that really happened, and we're allowed to discuss this again.
Basically, whoever is in charge (government, media platform, moderator,...) will moderate, censor and ban, until the preferable (for them) reality is set.
We see this in data. Washington [0], Vermont [1], and Maine [2] all got mask mandates last summer. These states have had half the number of cases [3] as other northern-US states which waited many more months before requiring their citizens to wear masks in public indoor spaces.
[0] https://www.governor.wa.gov/news-media/inslee-announces-stat...
[1] https://vtdigger.org/2020/07/24/scott-orders-mask-mandate/
[2] https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/health/coronavi...
[3] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areasRegional=uswa&area...
Back then, people who were wearking masks were marked as "stupid conspiracy theorists" and fearmongerers. Then, suddenly the mask mandates came in, and people not wearing the masks were "stupid conspiracy theorists".
example still online: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
> "There is no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any potential benefit. In fact, there's some evidence to suggest the opposite in the misuse of wearing a mask properly or fitting it properly," Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, said at a media briefing in Geneva, Switzerland, on Monday.
sigh
There are nuances for that. First, there weren't enough masks and other PPE for medical personnel; second, there was already hoarding going on. Making masks mandatory at the beginning would have been disastrous and likely resulted in the deaths of many medical personnel, who were among the main limits of how many cases a country can take.
Then, you're missing a big difference between the initial "don't use masks" and later "everyone should mask up" guidances. The initial one was that you shouldn't wear a mask to protect yourself because untrained people were unlikely to wear them properly and would just touch themselves too much, thus wasting the precious resource. And of course, there was little certainty about how the virus spread and when ( do you spread it only when you have symptoms? do you spread it only if you have a positive test? )
The later one was due to knowing much better how the virus propagates, we can now conclude that wearing a mask stops people from spreading it, so everybody should wear a mask to stop community spread. There's a huge difference between wearing a mask to protect yourself from getting infected, and to stop unknowing sick people from spreading the virus via the main way it spreads. And of course, when that came about, there were just about enough masks in most countries to actually be able to do that.
Yes, it should have been handled better. Is it normal for such guidance to evolve considering the many known and unknown unknowns ? Absofuckinglutely. Would you have prefered for the guidance to stay the same for fear of looking stupid and wasting countless more lives?
> Same with trump + wuhan lab theory... at first it was a bannable offence on facebook to promote such idea... and now after trump, there are serious inquiries if that really happened, and we're allowed to discuss this again.
Again, nuance! What was bannable was claiming that China developed the virus on purpose. The lighter versions, like accidental lab leak, weren't banned ( that i recall; if you have a source stating otherwise i'd gladly retract that statement). In any case, any such discussion in the beginning seemed, to me at least, as deflections and excuses. We suck at handling a pandemic compared to just about anyone, but it's not our fault, China made this! What does it matter where the virus came from when people are dying left and right from it? Now that things are calmer, we can discuss and investigate.
There is still zero proof on the matter, and i doubt there ever will be ( as if the CCP would admit a lab leak in China caused a pandemic with such proportions and consequences).
> In 2015, an international team including two scientists from the institute published successful research on a hybrid virus, combining a bat coronavirus with a SARS virus that had been adapted to grow in mice and mimic human disease. The hybrid virus was able to infect human cells.
I want to believe they had a good excuse for doing so.
I want to believe they created rigorous safety protocols that reduce the risks as much as possible.
Then they chose to do it in the most populous city in Central China (population 11 million) which is so stupid I doubt they had a good enough reason and certainly didn't bother with safety all that much.
After such stupidity one doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
[0] - List of laboratory biosecurity incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laboratory_biosecurity...
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/03/30/world/coronavirus-who-mas...
Yes, there was a shortage, but "no evidence ... any potential benefit" means something different.
About facebook:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/may/27/facebook-...
> Facebook is keen to ensure that a change in one rule doesn’t lead to a free-for-all for Covid misinformation. On the same day that it lifted the ban on lab-leak theories, it tightened up restrictions on users who “repeatedly share misinformation on Facebook”.
Guardian says it they also banned the "lab-leak" theories... (not to mention the second part of the quote).
Those are just two examples. Vaccine passports were also a "conspiracy theory". AstraZeneca was also marked as "perfectly safe" (and not "probably safe"), until they started ditching it everywhere.
And I'm not complaining about science changing after more data is revealed/processed (that is a normal part of science), I'm complaining about people getting banned one day for saying something, and then that something being accepted as reality the next day, and companies like facebook removing the bannable offence and saying "we will ban more people" in the same sentance.
Well, yes. We've always been at war with Eastasia.
That means, I agree we live in a time, that is pretending to be based on science - but the debates are way more about how all the people feel about certain things and words and happily ignore or fight against all the facts, if they don't fit.
Like, what does "benefit society" even mean? By what parameter? You can definitely make a scientific conclusion of the order of "religious conservatives really hate it when women work", but... duh? I can agree with that and not care one bit.
Second one, impossible because there's no such thing as race scientifically, in the sense the common person uses that word. You could make such a conclusion about groups with particular genetics, but you can't tell those by eyesight.
Oh, this one is easy.
Imagine we managed to create a good enough model of the society. Kinda similar to what engineers use to design bridges or combustion chambers.
Then we create a target function - minimize the number people below poverty level, minimize the weighted number of crimes, maximize productive life longevity - and so on. All good things.
We run it and the model tells us: (1) mandate every woman have three kids by age of thirty (2) promote currently elected president to the king and make it a lifetime hereditary post and (3) make sure everyone goes to the church every Sunday (4) sell Alaska to China.
We shrug, check things here and there - and no, there's no mistake, the solution is stable and whatever we thought were unresolvable problems of monarchy actually do have simple solutions which noone thought about before.
So, what's next?
Eg, "minimize people below poverty level" -- this isn't universally wanted. Some people believe in fact that it's fundamentally impossible and that if anybody is brought up, that can only happen by bringing somebody down, and at best this is achievable by averaging everything to mediocrity, and they hate the idea of that.
For the definition of "better off", see [1]
[EDIT]
Here's another option. Imagine, people come to you and say: hey, dale_glass, you're smart we trust you. Please pick the target function. You can put there whatever you want with whatever weight you want.
The caveat: you will have to unconditionally accept the outcome. You cannot keep tweaking and rerunning until the result matches your ideas of perfect society.
Your move?
Not everyone wants that either. Some enjoy having inferiors.
> Here's another option. Imagine, people come to you and say: hey, dale_glass, you're smart we trust you. Please pick the target function. You can put there whatever you want with whatever weight you want.
What does that have to do with science or what we were talking about? That's extremely subjective.
I think if you have some sort of point you are trying to make, you should confine yourself to something more practical and easier to have a definite answer. If you so I think you will find that, eventually, the invalidated belief will be dropped except by a small minority and the consensus will shift to encompass that viewpoint.
That's what that question is.
Eg, it's an "unpleasant Truth" that you're at a risk of dying in a car accident. But yeah, we just decide it's worth going out anyway, and ignore it.
But that isn't applicable to a similar "unpleasant Truth" that welding on a gas tank could get you killed. The task is different, the risks are different, the tradeoffs are different, the ways to compensate for danger are different.
All such things are very contextual. Trying to divine some sort of general rule or philosophy doesn't really work.
what andrepd said felt far more like a handwave
>However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society. It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
It's a denial of a hypothetical, which is not engaging with the core point, but instead attacking the analogy instead. It's a standard (and often unintentional) logical fallacy.
This is my interpretation of the conversation. Please avoid approaching this from the "perfect hypotheticals" perspective, their perfection is besides the point.
A: We have a perfect target metric, and we've found that C, which we philosophically like, performs far worse than B, which we find abhorrent
B: There's no perfect metric, and if there were, we've already found C is better, and there's no way how C could be worse.
It's deliberately avoiding the point.
To break it down even further:
>However, we found that (1) reproductive freedom (2) constitutionalism and democracy (3) religious freedom, are all conducive to a better society.
we've already found C is better
>It's impossible we'll ever find otherwise.
there's no way how C could be worse.
Optimal for pension system is to kill your grandpa. Do you accept that? I hope not.
The problem with the analogy is that the underlying assumption is that the people learning math want to know the truth and are acting in good faith even when they get the wrong answer.
On the other hand, there are people, powerful people, who push ideas that don't care about the truth. Here is a specific example. As the Republican nominee in 2016, Donald Trump tweeted that 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people. This is *wildly* wrong. When he was corrected, he didn't send out a correction, he didn't even remove the old tweet. The point is he was sending a message to his target audience that made them feel a certain way, and that was his goal ... not communicating the truth.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2015/nov/23/donald-tru...
Many well-intentioned people do get stuff wrong when it comes to racism or sexism. It's a complex topic with shifting definitions and evolving standards.
100 years ago, academia was at the forefront of racism due to some flawed philosophies and bad science. Should we really expect the average layperson to be ahead of those scholars just because some time has passed and they hear "racism is bad" a thousand times? No. The education needs to happen, and being wrong is a starting place.
There's also been a general failure by academia to explain modern racial concepts. Many people don't understand why it's OK to discriminate against asians in college admissions, for instance.
I don't understand that either.
Equality focuses on normalizing the distribution of resources, while equity distributes resources to normalize the outcome.
Equality, given a group of people, would aim to put them on a level playing ground by allocating the same level of resources to each. Equity however, would allocate resources to try and achieve similar outcomes across the people. People performing worse would thus get more resources in equity, but would receive the same amount.
The two are thus mutually incompatible. To a certain extent, some games can be played with the definition, such as what to include under the "level playing field". An example here would be the inclusion of natural talent and propensity for work that is generally considered innate. Should this be
I disagree, there can be conflicts between the two goals when resources are limited, but I think systems can be defined that support both.
College admissions is a strange place to promote the idea of equity since it is a fundementally inequitable process that is designed to find people with advantages and give them bigger advantages.
By introducing race based discrimination into college admissions you are reducing equality in a way that that doesn't create a more equitable situation. Anti-asian racism will handicap these students in other parts of their professional life so using the argument of "promoting equity" to discriminate against them in college admissions as well seems purely pernicious.
If you truely want to improve college equity, you need to first make changes to what is required for success at college and then adjust the admissions process to find candidates that can succeed.
> Many well-intentioned people do get stuff wrong when it comes to racism or sexism. It's a complex topic with shifting definitions and evolving standards.
In my specific example, there was nothing well-intentioned our complex about it. He was off by a factor of more than 5x. When his error was pointed out, and it is something trivially confirmed, he didn't fix it.
The scariest thing about Trump is not that he lied like crazy. It is that he really had an audience, and that audience is reasonably close to half the country. If you're a progressive, it is worth spending some time thinking about how to reach out to and get support from that half of the country. Because attempting to govern without them is a guaranteed disaster.
I completely agree with that.
Just to keep an eye on matters, and you never know how you need to set up your life going forward, lately I've made an attempt to eavesdrop on snatches of private conversations.
I'm blown away by how radicalized people are becoming, and not in a way that progressives would like. Formerly, these people were essentially indifferent. Now, not so much.
Not everybody who's somewhat left leaning is also a woke fundamentalist.
I mean, you're talking casually about mass murdering gay people, how can you be surprised that some people feel threatened by that?
a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls
(Note: in hindsight of course a comment that suggests mass murdering people is a troll post and not written in good faith, I'm not sure what I was thinking. I'm not debating that, just saying that it's hard and appreciate the nudges)
Only if one is willing to acknowledge being wrong. I'm not seeing that here.
But for way more complicated social issues people are supposed to turn their opinion around on the spot after a couple of comments.
Imagine your mom is racist. Will you go to each and every house on her street telling everyone not to talk to this racist bitch who is not willing to admit she's wrong? Or you will spend time after time after time leaving no avenue unexplored trying to see what is she coming from and why is she wrong?
It's not a bad idea to give it a try but it's important to recognize a lost cause when that is the case.
But but no means they constitute half of the country.
https://www.npr.org/2017/08/20/544861933/how-one-man-convinc...
The tech industry was just an exception for a decade or so because it was fairly non-corporate. Go to any conservative law firm or traditional management and try to start a fiery political debate, and see how that goes. There was never any lively democratic discourse or tolerance in any corporate environment, or any other private environment for that matter, ask any gay person that's older than 25 and doesn't live in a liberal state. George Carlin made a career of saying 'shit' on television, that's how free-wheeling discourse was.
Also as a sidenote on that Damore debacle, he got canned because of his presentation. You can cite 100 studies, when you start to argue that women drop out of high stress jobs because they're neurotic you might as well commit seppuku. He should have passed that manifesto by someone who isn't on the spectrum because anyone could have seen that trainwreck coming a mile away.
Having nothing against gays is not tolerance. This way people are also tolerant to microwaves, ceiling fans and aluminum foil: they have nothing agains all these things.
Tolerance is hating gays passionately, but still tolerating them and serving them in your store. Thinking that women should not be in the workspace, but still treating them equally and professionally.
That's what true tolerance is.
First, a world where most store owners hate me but serve me and most of my coworkers think I shouldn't be there but keep quiet about it is, bluntly speaking, a shitty world. Obviously, that world is better than one where people are outspoken about their bigotry, but I would strongly prefer a world of widespread acceptance.
Practically speaking, someone who "hates gays passionately" or thinks that "women should not be in the workspace" will probably treat their gay customers or female colleagues worse, even if they are trying to be tolerant.
Finally, I'd like to emphasize that these situations aren't academic to me. I'm fortunate in that I don't regularly experience homophobia in stores or misogyny at work but they're a real risk I face.
I have never seen that work. The hate usually manifest in various hidden and subtle actions. Intrigues. Plots. Leaving everyone involved with a bitter feeling and pure drama after a while.
If I am hated, I prefer open hate. Then I know where I am and can just go to a place I am truly welcome.
True tolerance in my book, is actually tolerating and accepting that life and humans are very diverse. Live and let live. And I can tolerate a lot of things I don't like for myself, as long as it is no direct harm to me.
Oh man, way to destroy your message. And here I thought it's going somewhere.
"similar to criticizing blind people for being bad at riding bicycles"
I am not aware of a debate where people get blamed for being blind.
But it makes sense to me to critizice people who want to ride bikes but have not the ability to do so in a safe way, that not endangers other people participating in street traffic.
Now if a blind person learns to ride the bike reasonable well (with technical help) so he or she can actually ride with safety and not endanger others - fine with me and probably most other people.
I mean, you could characterize this as a problematic presentation, but I'm not sure I'd say presentation is the problem with that sort of statement.
For example, let’s say that statistically it was discovered to be that more women prioritize work-life balance over all else. Let’s also assume that you want women to feel included in that little “meritocracy” you created. Is it more or less inclusive that your corporate strategy for promoting favored women who sacrificed their work life balance by working on weekend?
Show me what is wrong with this line of thinking.
You have 150kg lady buying a box of soda? Well, she's probably just have some health condition... and soda is for her to share with all friends.
You see a 35-year old healthy guy who was never employed jumping the turnstile? Well, he's surely going to his first job interview.
You have a Google employee who made a statement that can be controversial? Oh, shi...
Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever so I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
It's a corporate policy proposal, and it was posted to a private internal board of people interested in how to shape Google corporate policy to increase diversity. Sort of a workgroup. In a sane world, that's exactly the sort of workplace discussion one would want.
Well, it was fundamentally about how Google should stop all efforts to recruit or promote women or non-white men, because Damore believed those efforts were "discrimination" against himself.
Damore says straight up and in so many words that Google should end all of its "diversity" hiring initiatives because he believes they're discriminatory against himself, this is just not an arguable issue.
From the memo:
> Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
> Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:...
He goes on to list interventions like more pair programming, changing performance evaluations to encourage collaboration over competition, allowing more part-time work, and reducing the stress of the job.
He says Google needs to reduce hiring initiatives which are not backed by evidence, and which are themselves likely illegally discriminatory, like hiring quotas (likely illegal) and implicit bias training (debunked).
The idea that you can investigate something and present your good faith effort at the truth, with evidence, and be fired for that, is pretty scary. Like imagine several of your colleagues do comparisons of PostgreSQL and MongoDB on your internal blog, showing some benchmark results; you think that's not the whole picture and do your own comparison showing some other benchmarks. And then you get fired, not because your benchmarks were less rigorous or your writeup was poor, but because they don't like your answers. That's not an environment that's going to lead to good technology choices and an effective company.
If a forum isn't a "market place of ideas" than it's not a forum.
> He sent it to his coworkers, using company resources, on company time.
All of which were not reasons he got fired. And Google actually encourages its employees to do such things, by the way.
And those are all things we have done and is considered normal in most sane workplace. We all posted something not work related to your coworkers on internal forums, including politics.
> Your workplace has never been a free speech bastion.
Which was never the argument in the first place. Nobody is arguing that Google violated the 1st amendment by firing him. But let's not pretend that Google's size doesn't make it a major non-elected influence on our society. We have seen the consequences of that when it came to potential Covid-19 treatments and its origins. The "it's a private company", which hypocritically used by self-described socialists but I digress, doesn't negate the consequences of their actions or their responsibilities.
> Any person may or may not like that but it's been true forever
That's just an appeal to tradition fallacy.
> I'm not sure how it indicates that free speech is now in some sort of novel danger.
I'm the owner of a big corporations and me and my buddies form the largest group of employers in the country, I don't like your stance on free speech and who you support politically. Yeah but!? No, I'm a private company.
Getting fired for insulting your co-workers is not censorship.
In society today, we have a "paradox of tolerance". If we tolerate everything, then we tolerate people being intolerant, and many people in our society will suffer. So we must be intolerant of intolerance. This is the only way to build a society of equality and justice.
Please go to https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideol... and come back quoting his exact words on that topic. We'll wait.
Oh, right. You can't. Because he never said that, nor did he say anything that amounted to that. When it comes to false claims, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and all that.
I believe the paradox of tolerance as a useful idea is empty and bunk
We haven't lost our tolerance for free speech, we've lost our tolerance for listening to people who claim society has to listen to their bullshit because of the first amendment rather than because they present a compelling argument in a positive way.
Open discourse can exist as a value too. And Google, one of the most influential entity in the US and the world, has decided that it's not something that should be promoted. Just as LeBron James has the right to defend the genocidal regime of China. But let's not fool ourselves about who's on the right side of history.
Quoting the OP, "Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Damore, he was engaged in free speech." This sounds like it refutes your statement, no?
Having worked there when this happened, the discourse definitely felt like, "Google is stifling the free speech of one of their employees" vs "Google has the right to fire employees for any reason."
> Open discourse can exist as a value too
It does (are we not engaging in it right now?).
There were (and I assume still are) plenty of random internal mailing lists where those types of discussions happened. I mostly stayed away from them because my goal at Google was to build cool products, not waste my day on internal mailing lists; I prefer to go to HN to do that.
> Just as LeBron James has the right to defend the genocidal regime of China.
I guess the NBA and China is the Godwin's law equivalent for free speech. He has the legal right to say what he wants, he doesn't have the right to have what he says have zero consequences (which is what the comic says).
You argue that he doesn't have a choice, but he does: he can speak his mind and potentially lose access to his largest market; he's just unwilling to do that because he deems the economic ramifications are too large. You always have a choice, most just choose to not make the hard one.
> Having worked there when this happened, the discourse definitely felt like, "Google is stifling the free speech of one of their employees" vs "Google has the right to fire employees for any reason."
Free speech as in the 1st amendment, sorry I wasn't clear enough. Yes Google "has the right to fire people as they like", but it's not free speech as a value, which can and will cause problems down the line on a societal level. Would it be all right for FAANG to fire all Republicans? All pro-unions people?
> I mostly stayed away from them because my goal at Google was to build cool products, not waste my day on internal mailing lists; I prefer to go to HN to do that.
Good for you, but his post was was about Google's internal policies and work, which is work related.
> You argue that he doesn't have a choice, but he does: he can speak his mind and potentially lose access to his largest market; he's just unwilling to do that because he deems the economic ramifications are too large. You always have a choice, most just choose to not make the hard one.
I don't get why you insist on showing a total lack of social conscience like a crony corporate lawyer who likes to brag about how he shipped well paying jobs overseas. Yes it is legal right now, it doesn't mean it's right thing to do.
I guess when they will use your data for salary and hiring purposes against you then you will change your tune. P.S.: do not talk about unions ;)
I think you're confusing lost tolerance for free speech with 'raising the value of the speech of traditionally marginalized groups.'
A man at Atari in 1976 who argues women are worse engineers than men mostly broadcasts to an audience of empowered men and disempowered women. So his 'free speech' is respected while those women's is not.
A man at Google in 2018 who argues the same thing has to deal with the consequences of women's speech, but to him, that feels like a chilling of his free speech.
I'm fine that we are in scenario 2, having listened to a lot of other ill-informed white men give heir 'opinion' on things for no true reason.
If you have, please tell me what passage makes you think that it says that women are worse engineers than men. Because as far as I can tell, there are none.
The topic at hand is controversial enough WITHOUT making up stuff about what was said.
>humans are generally biased towards protecting females.
>These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics
>This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading.
>Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average
I think the disconnect here is that the author is couching his claims with strawmen 'women prefer' and links to small-n surveys that you find sufficient (but most do not). Maybe if we refactored some of what he said, it would make sense:
> people who excel at math are generally biased toward being short and unfriendly.
>These two differences in part explain why STEM students relatively prefer working long-hours and avoiding meaningful human connection. More liberal arts students may like socializing because it requires EQ and even within startups, comparatively more PMs and SDRs have significant others.
>This leads to engineers generally having a harder time receiving criticism, asking for help, staying out of others business, and collaborating.
>Engineers on average look for peer praise while SDRs have a higher drive for wealth accumulation.
Where exactly have you worked as an engineer where leadership didn't matter and people weren't encouraged to speak up?
EDIT: To be clear about the point here, none of these claims are sourced! He's just insulting women in 'kind-sounding' language! I think women are very unprotected in modern society! I think women LOVE systemization! The insult is the unsourced claim!
It was probably a better time for being a woman in CS than now, with disingenuous bros paying lip service to SJW causes in order to keep their > 250,000 salaries while not having a clue.
Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with Damore, he was engaged in free speech. What he said is supported by a significant body of research and researchers. (And opposed by others - as it often the case on controversial topics.)
And yet, he was fired and made an example of. Anyone who publicly says that he had a point got shot down both within companies like Google, and on various discussion forums like this one.
I don't know how or when we lost tolerance for free speech, both as an industry and as a society. But the Damore incident is when I realized that we have.