Hypothesis: some "mild facts" are legally considered "harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive." These two things can both be true, but if they are, companies might still be obligated to minimize a harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive workplace.
> some "mild facts" are legally considered "harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive."
What? I thought the argument from the other end was always to deny these were facts. You are saying, yes, they are facts. But they are too volatile so we won't examine them?
Well I believe Google is in the right to fire him. But what I found most embarrassing is most people who I'd imagine to mostly liberal and reasonable behaved like he said something so vile that he must be censored across all news media.
they fired Damore, because he was pushing an agenda. he presented those 'mild facts' selectively and then used the selection to argue for something bigger that is very questionable/false, i.e. that women have no place at top STEM positions
