But his thoughts extended beyond that. He agrees with equality, agrees sexism exists, but disagrees with how Google approaches those issues. Is it wrong to share those ideas? I see people routinely share ideas that are on the other end of the political spectrum than you probably think he is on, and society accepts…

Did.. you read it?

That’s not what he said. One of his positions was that men and women might be innately drawn to different fields. There is no debate that men and women are different. The thought that that wouldn’t extend to other life choices doesn’t make sense to me (or the author). That concept, as well as the idea that women…

I think that’s taking his arguments to some bizarre extreme. At its core, the writer is calling out what he feels to be oppressive and discriminatory practices at Google, as well as unsustainable and ineffective methods for combating sexism and inequality. He does not disagree with the fundamental idea of equality,…

If that is true - that the writer’s argument is rooted in junk or misunderstood science - then the correct response is to refute it. Silencing him only confirms to subscribers of his ideology that they are correct. The mark of an honest ideology is its subscribers’ ability to defend it intellectually, not by…

Maybe he was hoping there would be change. One of his central points was that combating inequality with discrimination is an unsustainable and ineffective means of achieving that goal. He never disagreed with the premise of equality or with combating discrimination, but rather how it was being accomplished at…

Government, management, coworkers. Sometimes when you are in that position, you have no choice but to give your thoughts the largest audience possible, otherwise it may be rapidly silenced and it would be impossible to prove why or to gain enough support to effectively fight it.

Did you read it? I did not read “mental barf” - I saw an intelligent guy posing an intelligent argument about what he feels is the wrong path to achieve equality. You may disagree with his arguments, but I believe that he is being intellectually honest in raising them. This doesn’t read like some sexist or racist…

Did you read what he wrote? I really did not get that he was some sexist/racist jerk. I honestly can’t comment on his sourcing, but he seemed to have what he thought were legitimate concerns. His desired outcome wasn’t to allow intolerance, sexism, or racism, but to achieve equality through a different path than it…

Telling people not to blow the whistle on discriminatory and oppressive practices is itself oppressive. Simply because you disagree with him doesn’t make his intentions any different from someone on the opposite “side” making the opposite claims (calling out sexism against women, policies that oppress women, etc.). …

They have never happened? Cities across the country routinely take steps to ban sugar. It starts with a tax.

I got REALLY excited and thought the third port was a USB-C output. Turns out it’s a Micro USB input.

I got REALLY excited and thought the third port was a USB-C output. Turns out it’s a Micro USB input.

The second-hand smoke argument is invalid because this isn’t banning smoking, it’s banning nicotine. To my knowledge, the dangers of second-hand smoke don’t come from the nicotine.

Of course it isn’t - but whose decision is that to make? The individual’s or the government’s? The latter implies that individuals aren’t capable of making their own decisions, and that government is, which negates the principles of a government “by the people, for the people”. If government knows best, then it is…

You can laugh all you want, but it really won’t be funny when the government decides that something that you enjoy should be illegal. If “it’s unhealthy” becomes the standard by which the government can make items and behaviors illegal, I’m sure something you enjoy will be taken from you. Sugar, alcohol, caffeine,…

The people who thank their government for legally prohibiting other people from doing something that only harms them just haven’t discovered that they are oppressed yet. Oppressive governments cannot be created without people like you ushering them in one small step at a time.

Maybe because we live in a supposedly free society where it is up to each individual to make sane and healthy choices for themselves, not the government?

Collusion is when the media works with a political party and campaign staff to deceive the American public in fraudulent televised debates. Example: CNN passed debate questions along to the head of the DNC who passed them along to the Clinton campaign ahead of the democratic primary debate in an ultimately successful…

I wish we lived in a world where the “worst person on Earth” was some kid who was a shitty neighbor but devoted his life to trying to make others enjoy theirs.

I see many more women consume multiple seats with their bag(s) than “manspreaders”.