> So, stating true, scientifically verified facts that challenge Google's official political ideology is now a fireable offence. Did you read the memo? I don'

> So, stating true, scientifically verified facts that challenge Google's official political ideology is now a fireable offence. Did you read the memo? I don't think you did. Let me help you distinguish fact from speculation. Quote from the memo: "Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing)" This is science supported by citations. Cool. "These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics" This is pure speculation without any supporting evidence. The document is littered with these unsupported conclusions that he arrives at which are several steps away from the actual science. I'd be happy to point them out at length. It's extremely deceptive of you to say that he was fired for stating facts, while the minority of the points in his doc had any supporting facts whatsoever. In fact, reports indicate that was fired for violating the Google code of conduct: http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/google-fires-james-damore-for-writing-anti-diversity-memo.html http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/08/google-fires-james-damore.... If you'd like to present the argument for a) why he didn't violate the code of conduct or b) that's not why he was fired, by all means proceed. I'd be interested to see your evidence for that.