>My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of

>My firing neatly confirms that point. How did Google, the company that hires the smartest people in the world, become so ideologically driven and intolerant of scientific debate and reasoned argument? This statement leaves me divided. One could soundly argue that Google isn't the place for "scientific debate and reasoned argument" on that topic, and there is such thing as appropriate and inappropriate topics, and correct and incorrect channels to discuss those topics in. To say that Google is simply "intolerant of scientific debate" misses the point. I'm sure Google has research divisions in which scientific debate occurs. The point is that they're not debating whether women are more predisposed to front-end development or not. There's a time and a place; I'm not sure what made Mr. Damore think it was either the time or the place for his "scientific debate" (which, I may be wrong, didn't actually invite debate, it was more of a rant) such that now he has sound basis to say that the issue doesn't lie with his choice of words in the document, how he approached the matter, where he published and if it was in good faith or not, and it does lie with Google simply being "intolerant of scientific debate". I wouldn't stand up in a high school (or any level of schooling) biology classroom, read from a list of even science-based points about gender or race, which genders or races are fit for certain tasks etc. with or without citations, and complain my conservative views are being silenced. Why? Beacuse it's not appropriate for the time and the place.