[dguaraglia]

> And he got fired for exactly this: expressing opinions that are not aligned with SJW dogma.

No, he got fired for making himself impossible to work with. If he disagreed with Google's and his fellow Googler's values, he could've left and go somewhere where he felt welcome. Trying to go out with a bang is just a douchebag move.

> His language was very careful, his claims were sourced

Where are the sources to his claims, pray tell? People keep repeating this as fact, but this is not a paper, and there's no list of references at the end of it.

> He is guilty only of opening talking points SJWs and feminists dont want to talk about and use tactic of character assassination to dismiss messenger instead of debating his message.

Calling people "SJWs" and "feminists" and ascribing some conspiracy to them proves the point that this was a dogwhistling exercise. You, my friend, are barking madly right now.

> I am not convinced this was beneficial for google.

I can guarantee he'll get his ass handed to him in court if he tries to sue Google for discrimination. Any corporation that size has ways to resolve these matters slowly and completely under the radar. To me his sudden dismissal is a strong signal that their legal department gave them the go ahead. They wouldn't do that if they didn't feel they have a solid case.

[panda88888]

Gizmodo and many other websites removed charts and references. The memo in its entirety is here

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

[ksk]

>No, he got fired for making himself impossible to work with.

The fact that a lot of people became hysterical instead of providing a simple calm response kind of proves his point - That a debate is not possible without people either slandering the author, or purposely assuming malicious intent when there was none. Are google employees so thin-skinned that someone simply questioning a company policy is cause for getting fired?

> If he disagreed with Google's and his fellow Googler's values, he could've left and go somewhere where he felt welcome.

What are you talking about? To the latter part, why should that be the only option? Who are we to tell someone what to do? What if he likes working at Google, and is merely annoyed at one small aspect and wanted to discuss it internally, or improve the situation?

[dguaraglia]

> The fact that a lot of people became hysterical instead of providing a simple calm response kind of proves his point

Right. Seems like he valued his point more than his job. Well done, him!

> What if he likes working at Google, and is merely annoyed at one small aspect

Really? Calling the whole organization driven by "leftist ideals" is "a small aspect"? Give me a break. I can guarantee you wouldn't be able to tell me that with a straight face in person, but somehow expect me to take it at face value because you put it in writing.

[ksk]

Could you please reign in the hyperbole? The author has presented their opinion on what constitutes left or right biases, and it is patently obvious that (even in the authors opinion) the whole organization is not driven by 'leftist ideals' - a term which doesn't come up in the memo at any point BTW. The context of the memo is quite narrow - Diversity hiring, and unconscious bias as it pertains the the former. It doesn't discuss every single aspect of Google as an organization. I don't know why you think an employee couldn't be happy with Google as a company, and only disagree on specific policies.