Can you name others? I literally could not find the controversies for the first two, and it doesn’t appear anything worse than being fired from Google has happened to James Damore.

Both of the first two are on Wikipedia.

Prom dress controversy: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/kassycho/keziah-daum-pr...

Geisha party: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/mom-called-apos-racist-apos-...

Professor suspended for using a Chinese word: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/08/professor-sus...

Asian fusion restaurant incident: https://www.dailywire.com/news/asian-restaurant-in-nyc-force...

These links are just the first things that came up on Google to help you find what you’re looking for. I’m not claiming these links are the best sources.

Man fired for cracking knuckles: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-cal...

Sure, the people are on Wikipedia, but the account of their controversy was not.

Besides, what do any of these have to do with conservative views being suppressed?

They are both on wikipedia; I read them yesterday. On mobile now, but you can google them easily. They don’t have anything to do with conservatives views being suppressed because we weren’t talking about that. The original claim was that people who get “called out” have reprehensible views—I gave examples of people who were fired or harassed or etc for completely innocuous speech.

…what do you think the title of this submission is?

Oh dear, you think every comment on HN is a direct reply to the title? No, comments are arranged in a tree structure. For example, the comment you're reading right now is a reply to your previous comment, not to the title. It's not just HN that structures its comments this way--it's a very popular schema, so this bit of knowledge should be really helpful for you on your Internet adventures. Godspeed!

Hm, so you don’t think comments should be related to one another?

The comments were related to each other, and indirectly to the title. This discussion has descended into obtuseness, and I find obtuseness to be boring, so I’ll dip out.

The comments were not related, if you were no longer discussing conservatives being banned from platforms.

Sorry you feel the need to name-call here, but hope you have a better time elsewhere.

I didn’t name call. You seem to be pathologically misreading my comments and others. Good bye now.

James Damore was fired for violating his employee agreement, because he said the reason you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable.

Even James confirmed as much, and this is more to my point of how playing the victim card without acknowledging agreement violations is intentionally misleading. And before someone asks, "DiD u rEaD tHe MeMo?" Yes. Yes I did, it's right there:

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

Of course, those are two completely different statements, as I'm sure you know:

> you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable.

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

And having read the full document (or even just the bits I quoted in my comment above), you surely also know that he was very explicitly not imputing population-level averages onto individuals. Damore's critics have been very openly lying about the contents of the document; there's no charitable way to interpret their claims.

To be quite clear, I don't think Damore is a hero (his politics are more conservative than mine and I don't think he handled the fallout particularly well), but he was clearly fired for claims he very explicitly didn't make[^1], and his critics are just doubling-down on what can't be described as anything other than trivially-verifiable lies.

[^1]: Even Google's legal team knew that they couldn't get him on those bases and instead they argued that criticizing Google's hiring practices implied that some of his coworkers weren't the best candidates for the job thus creating a hostile workplace. Of course, criticizing Google's hiring practices was absolutely pedestrian at Google at the time, although the argument was that Google's hiring practices were biased toward whites, men, etc. This is pretty obviously just pretense to fire him for ideological transgressions.

Hiding behind an appeal to averages does not change the fact that Damore said women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech and leadership positions.

Again, Damore reaped the consequences of his own actions by violating a contract he agreed to. This is intentionally misleading to represent him as a martyr for right-wingers.

Unless, of course, you think the conservative agenda includes promoting that women are biologically incapable of holding teach and leadership positions.

If course, he didn’t say “on average women are incapable of leadership”. Care to try again with words he actually used?

Can you? I'm not trying to make a point by hiding behind an appeal to averages.

No one is trying to make a point by hiding behind an appeal to averages. That's the point. The fact that you can't support your assertions about Damore's claims (without changing his words) proves my point. :)

You mean the direct quote made above with the "assertions"? Are you intentionally playing dumb?

Here it is (again):

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

Damore's argument looks more like this:

An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech.

There are men and women at the tail who are capable of being in tech.

Because of the difference in averages, there are fewer women than men who are capable and want to be in tech.

---

Collapsing all that to "women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech" is disingenuous. Using words like "incapable" implies binariness, ignoring the continuous nature of distributions.

Collapsing Damore's argument into "An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech." is disingenious, especially given his quote only speaks to one sex.

But then I doubt you care, especially since your account does nothing but astroturf Damore on HN.

I do google Damore on HN to seek out misinformation to debunk. The other hot takes that I do is trash-talking car dependent urban planning.

Occasionally I learn things in the latter discussions.