[Goladus]

People are fired for exhibiting corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitudes every day. Are they all victims of "textbook thoughtcrime punishment?"

The Google manifesto does not represent a "corrosive, counterproductive, or otherwise bad attitude." That so many people are insane or lazy enough to think it does is precisely the author's point.

[Lagged2Death]

The question in my mind is: Does an opinion suddenly become a "thought crime" if expressing it publicly might get you fired from a non-governmental employer? The consequences don't include incarceration or even necessarily the end of a career. This is, in principle, "crime?" Really?

You've jumped straight into name calling without engaging that question.

Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement? Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call.

Consider the possibility that you have read the manifesto but you haven't understood the context. That other people, who claim to see something else there, really are seeing it, they're not making it up. Consider the possibility that some of them have had experiences you have not. That some of them are just smarter than you. That people who disagree with you aren't insane or lazy.

[Goladus]

The question in my mind is: Does an opinion suddenly become a "thought crime" if expressing it publicly might get you fired from a non-governmental employer?

Coercive behavior of any sort is rarely an appropriate response to a sincere and well-articulated argument. It is incumbent on the coercive actor to justify their actions. Usually, the justifications are not controversial. When they are, often that means there's a problem somewhere and that discussion really is necessary.

In this case, the author clearly explains why he believes this topic is important to discuss.

Couldn't we characterize the manifesto scandal as, in part, an apalling lack of judgement?

No. Not unless you accept that it is justified to punish someone for posting a polite, articulate, well-informed argument made out of a genuine attempt to be both truthful and helpful to the mission of the organization. (note: well-informed does not mean comprehensive or right about everything. It just means good enough to start a dialog.)

Should your response lend me (or anyone) any confidence in your judgement? Yet here you are, charging right in with a judgement call.

Explain to me how the memo is corrosive. What is being corroded?

Explain to me how the memo is counterproductive. What is the desired production? How does the memo run counter to that production?

Explain to me how the memo represents a bad attitude. What is "bad" and "good?"

I say the memo is polite because it shows a substantial degree of sensitivity to the opposing arguments and ideology. The ideas are presented in a detached, academic manner with a clear effort to avoid sensational rhetoric or ranting.

I say the memo is sincere for several reasons. I am unable to detect any attempt to misrepresent or mischaracterize his opposition. He clearly demonstrates acceptance of personal responsibility for the opinions presented. Finally, he appeals to open discussion in a way that welcomes disagreement and sincere disputation of any points he makes. The one presumption of sincerity that I might have questioned-- that Google really is an ideological echo-chamber-- was overwhelmingly confirmed by the hostility of the response.

I say the memo is clear and thoughtful because the author uses plainly stated premises and syllogisms. He is straightforward with his points and transparent with his logic. While specific citations for supporting evidence could have been more rigorous, it's clear that the author is not just pulling these positions out of nowhere. Any reasonable attempt to continue discussion could challenge him to go into more detail about the supporting evidence.

That some of them are just smarter than you.

It has little to do with intelligence. It has mostly to do with not having the first clue how to tell the difference between a legitimate attempt at dialog and ideologically-motivated rhetoric. Intelligence is only a factor insofar as a baseline of intelligence is needed to comprehend the argument. I'm not an expert but I suspect most of the people hysterical about the manifesto are smart enough to understand it, if they knew how to read it properly.

[Lagged2Death]

It has little to do with intelligence. It has mostly to do with not having the first clue how to tell the difference between a legitimate attempt at dialog and ideologically-motivated rhetoric.

Hm.