Not surprising - it’s difficult to defend hypocrisy.

I sort of agree with you - but I just can’t see past the “Techbro” and “dudebro”s - this is what I am talking about. How is that not alienating? To me - and this may not be your intention, but this is how it reads to me - it sounds like you have some problem with guys in tech, that you are irritated by them, so much…

Thank you for finally engaging honestly in this discussion. I’ve read through both articles. Here’s a quote from the NPR article:

Thank you! That’s a great point about Google providing the forum for this memo/essay/whatever and maybe even encouraging employees to use it, and then turning around and firing them for opening what they felt was an honest discussion.

It was posted to an internal mailing list - I don’t work at Google so I can’t comment on what’s standard there, but it didn’t sound to me like he posted it somewhere totally inappropriate - it was shared throughout the company and Silicon Valley before the media latched on and it gained national traction.

It is amazing to me that you can write something like that and not stop and recognize your own hypocrisy. Maybe in your world most racists are white and most sexists are men because you dismiss all racism from non-whites and all sexism from women. When you only acknowledge racism from white people and sexism from…

My understanding is that the internal sharing of ideas is commonplace at Google. That’s what he did, in the hopes that management may acknowledge its own biases and correct them before those like him jumped ship. If you feel that just *his* thoughts had no place being shared, well that’s the exact kind of…

I mean he even says he acknowledges sexism and calls it out, so it sounds like you’ve projected your own bias onto him while reading his paper. It’s that kind of knee-jerk reaction to label those with opposing views as “sexist” and “racist” that he’s referring to when he talks about the authoritarian progressive echo…

Sigh. I am very interested. I am interested in any and all explanations. It’s those trashing this guy’s essay who are close-minded.

Read his essay, then I am happy to discuss.

You make an interesting point:

No, I did not think that asking me to read was condescending - I think it was condescending to assert that I was “confused.”

Come on, I can’t tell if you are being intentionally dense - you sound more intelligent than this - you have to know that telling someone they are “confused” is condescending, right? I didn’t take offense to it - I’m used to it in these kinds of “debates” - I’m simply using it as an example of the kind of culture…

That’s all great and I completely believe you. I believe that women are capable of great things, just like men. People seem to be misunderstanding what he’s saying - it’s not about being suited for the work. It’s about explaining discrepancies in gender distribution. And by the way, it goes both ways - there are…

You should read the essay if you are confused by all this.

You are totally missing the point here

“In addition to that, he was allowed to express his opinion and there was no oppression.” He was fired!

“It is a common experience among women.” is anecdotal. Others are attempting to discredit his essay because of his sources - where are yours?

Do you have any of the qualifications that you state that he needs to discuss this topic? If not, why do you feel that you are qualified to discuss it? Why do your own rules only apply to others? This is the authoritarian, oppressive, echo chamber he’s referring to.

Please tell me more about how only specifically appointed people are permitted to discuss diversity, genders, and the like, and how that is not the exact authoritarian culture he was bringing to light.