[menacingly]

I agree. I thought Damore's memo was an insane level of workplace inappropriate if just from a topic standpoint, until I heard about the rest of Google's discussion culture. It's just begging for horrible conflict that these items are even on the table.

It should be possible to conduct yourself professionally and not burn up inside over whether or not someone harbors some ideology that conflicts with one of yours.

[stcredzero]

It should be possible to conduct yourself professionally and not burn up inside over whether or not someone harbors some ideology that conflicts with one of yours.

More and more, it's portrayed in the media that people who are so out of control they can't tolerate different opinions are the "genuine" ones. This goes hand in hand with how certain kinds of ad-hominem attack are somehow morally laudable and intellectual worthy activities.

[menacingly]

What I see becoming common is "sure, we should respect different opinions, but _this issue_ is so important we can't afford to sit on the sidelines", and then you say that for every issue.

[xapata]

I haven't observed the media portrayal you describe. Different channels promote different views, but claiming more "genuine" isn't something I've seen.

[stcredzero]

That scene with Bill O'Reilly yelling, "We'll do it LIVE!" is a prime example. The sort of ad-hominem implication one sees again and again in interviews is another example.

[thaumasiotes]

> I thought Damore's memo was an insane level of workplace inappropriate if just from a topic standpoint

I feel like the idea "our hiring policies are getting us a lower quality of incoming employees than we should be getting" seems OK in the workplace from a topic standpoint...