[nxsynonym]

Companies can and should have view points. However, firing anyone who disagrees with those viewpoints is a knee-jerk reaction to avoid any negative press.

They could have reacted with a "Google does not support or endorse the views expressed", and let the rest happen naturally.

This is censorship. Yes, it's within a privately owned company, but it is very clearly a suppression of intellectual debate. Why not encourage this debate to happen?

This black-and-white, all-or-nothing trend in public speech in general is very concerning. Debate and discourse no longer exist, it's simply one side flaming the other.

[MBCook]

Lots of companies have done the 'we don't condone' thing, and the people effected by these kind of views often view that as tacit approval and make decisions (partnering, investing, employment, etc) based on that.

A small soon as this became publicly known Google had to take a stand one way or the other. They may not INTEND to, but a big chunk of the audience (on either side) would have seen it as such.

Heck if they tried to ride the middle some/many women may have felt betrayed and unwanted and some/many men felt ignored or slighted.

[gobugat]

Here is an "intellectual debate" for you: hairdressers are a danger to society and should be exterminated. Why don't you want to have it? Why censoring a potentially valid viewpoint?

[nxsynonym]

I'm not following.

I will gladly debate this with you. Don't assume I don't want to engage, or that I would attempt to censor your view.

[gjulianm]

The point I think the parent is trying to make is that some times debating certain ideas is validating them a little bit. It's as if someone asked me to jump off a bridge: discussing whether he should jump or not would be like saying "there is some possibility that you convince me and I jump off the bridge".

Indeed, you should enter a debate with the idea that the other might convince you, right? If you are not going to change it it's not a debate.

[gobugat]

On point, thanks.