[edynoid]

This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship", that has become popular recently. Let me elaborate a little…

When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view. It means actively suppressing certain kinds of information from being distributed.

What is happening here, looks more like this: a Google employee publishes an email. Lots of people in the company find the content objectionable. Subsequently they decide that they do not want to work with somebody having these opinions. I do not see, how that is even close to censorship. It is not like he has a right to keep that particular job. He can still go out on the street and shout his opinion at the crowd.

Censorship, intimidation & oppression are very strong words to describe a situation, where somebody lost their job, because they wrote an objectionable essay on a company mailing list.

There is a difference between a right to express your opinion, which I support, and a right not to face any resistance or social consequences for voicing that same opinion. The latter of which is made up by the political right trying to relabel it as "free speech".

You can't cry censorship every time you are criticized for something you said. And let's be honest here: white men with regressive points of view are still not particularly threatened of not being heard. After all, they are well represented in pretty much every single powerful institution like parliaments, courts and executive boards. They'll manage to get their opinion heard, I'm afraid.

[davidreiss]

> This sounds like that weird right-wing notion of "censorship"

I'm not right-wing, whatever that means nowadays. I'm what you would call a liberal from NY.

> When I hear "censorship" I am thinking of government agents sitting in newspaper editorial rooms striking out all statements in an article that does not align with the government's point of view.

Really? So if google blocks all lgbt content, it wouldn't be censorship? Sure there is government censorship, but there is also academic, corporate, cultural, etc censorship. In the US, there was a time when the media refused to show movies/tv shows/etc with interracial or homosexual content. Wouldn't you call that censorship?

> What is happening here, looks more like this: a Google employee publishes an email. Lots of people in the company find the content objectionable.

The unofficial google employee polls seem to indicate he has as much support as he has detractors. But that's besides the point. My argument is that there are many google employees who aren't fans of lgbt, atheist, liberal, etc stances either. Why are only one groups' feelings considered? If many google employees feel offended by some google employee's open lgbt support, should google fire the pro-lgbt employees?

My question is where does it end? If a google employee has a LGBT flag, should that person be fired?

> There is a difference between a right to express your opinion, which I support, and a right not to face any resistance or social consequences for voicing that same opinion.

So you support lgbt and atheists being persecuted in other countries right? They have a right to express their opinions but they deserve resistence and social consequences?

How about everyone deserves the right to their opinion and EVERYONE deserves to be protected from bullying and intimidation?

All this guy did was have a open INTERNAL discussion that was created by GOOGLE ITSELF. Another google employee who was offended leaked this information and then this guy with honest intentions was persecuted.

> You can't cry censorship every time you are criticized for something you said.

Of course not. But the guy lost his job?

I'm all for criticizing the guy. But the mindless attacks against him and him losing a job is what I am against. Okay?

I believe everyone should be able to criticize and be opened to criticize. I don't think anyone should be persecuted, attacked and oppressed over their opinions.

As I said, if this guy got fired for making pro-lgbt statements and it offended a bunch of christian employees and google fired him, would you be defending google? I highly doubt it.

[edynoid]

The "right-wing" categorization is probably not that helpful, I agree.

If I understand you correctly, by turning the argument around (against LGBT, atheist, liberal, etc. people) you want to challenge my point that it is okay to criticize and resist certain opinions and draw consequences from them.

I feel like there is a big difference between the scenario at hand and systematic persecution of certain groups of people.

You seem to assign a huge value to keeping a job. Do you think this is equal to being tracked down and killed by police? That's what e.g. LGBT people face in some countries, is that what you mean by that?

From my point of view, that employee actually tried to advance a very hostile political agenda with what he wrote, that might have harmed many people. Of course, this harm is not as visible as being fired, but it does hurt the opportunities for women, who have to try twice as hard in an environment, where you need to fight with people over whether you are even biologically capable of doing your job.

On the other hand, following your example with the guy making pro-LGBT statements: you make it sound like LGBT is some sort of political agenda by itself. But people usually just _are_ lesbian or trans without making a huge fuss out of it… I do not see how this compares to writing a 10-page essay systematically attacking half of your co-workers.

And, no, I would not defend Google for firing somebody for, say, being a lesbian. That's a completely different scenario.

[davidreiss]

> I feel like there is a big difference between the scenario at hand and systematic persecution of certain groups of people.

What's the difference? Persecution is persecution.

> You seem to assign a huge value to keeping a job.

It's one of the most important aspects of people's lives. One way of oppressing people is through their employment. What better way is there to intimidate and silence people other than attacking their employment?

> From my point of view, that employee actually tried to advance a very hostile political agenda with what he wrote

Care to point out where the hostility is? The guy was participating in a google led private forum. Nothing he wrote can be objectively and honestly construed as hostile.

> where you need to fight with people over whether you are even biologically capable of doing your job.

Pointing out biological differences is science. Saying that perhaps there are biological advantages that kenyans enjoy in long distance running

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/wh...

or that tibetans/himalayans are better adapted to high altitude environments

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/07/tibetans-inherited-hi...

isn't hostile.

To say stating certain biological conditions exist is hostile is a form of anti-science rhetoric that all peoples on all side should be concerned with.

> And, no, I would not defend Google for firing somebody for, say, being a lesbian. That's a completely different scenario.

You say it is a different scenario but you don't explain why? A muslim company asks their employees to discuss on their private channel on how they could be a better company. A pro-lgbt person says we need more lgbt people in the company. Some muslim employees find it offensive and leaks this out to the media and the muslim media wages a media war against this pro-lgbt person. So they fire this pro-lgbt person. How is it any different?

All you are saying is that you just want your side to be protected. The "others" deserve no protection or empathy. That is very worrying.

[doubleshame]

Google firing him may just be good business. Time will tell.

More alarming is how people and the media have misrepresented and reacted to the content, even if they disagree with it.