3 ms·
Hypothesis: some "mild facts" are legally considered "harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive." These two things can both be true, but if they are, companies mi
by fixermark 8y ago
Hypothesis: some "mild facts" are legally considered "harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive." These two things can both be true, but if they are, companies might still be obligated to minimize a harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive workplace.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/16/17021714/james-damore-google-nlrb-complaint-diversity-discrimination https://www.theverge.com/2018/2/16/17021714/james-damore-goo...
- geodel 8y agoWell I believe Google is in the right to fire him. But what I found most embarrassing is most people who I'd imagine to mostly liberal and reasonable behaved like he said something so vile that he must be censored across all news media.
- ramblerman 8y ago> some "mild facts" are legally considered "harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive." What? I thought the argument from the other end was always to deny these were facts. You are saying, yes, they are facts. But they are too volatile so we won't examine them?
- fixermark 8y agoI'm using the quotation marks to indicate quoted opinions. The difference between the two opinions that is significant: one is an opinion in a legal ruling and therefore carries force of law.