I would argue that Damore when writing his memo acted out his autism. A neurotypical person would probably understand that within the culture in Google at the t

I would argue that Damore when writing his memo acted out his autism. A neurotypical person would probably understand that within the culture in Google at the time, such a memo would be seen as sacriligeus. An autist is more likely to just say what they believe to be true, with no such filter. Essentially, it was a direct assault at some of the fundamentals of an entire belief system. Now let's imagine for a moment that he were completely accurate on the science. If, so, and if his memo were to be taken seriously, it would invalidate the motivation for the DEI narrative, with the following implications: - Some senior roles would no longer be needed - People who had been hired or promoted to fulfill DEI goals might be in their position not based on merit, but rather a false belief - The belief systems of a significant percentage of the staff would be shattered, causing very painful cognitive dissonance, as well as anger (quite possibly enough to make them want to punch him) All-in-all this would be a disaster especially if he happened to be right. If so, the only way to avoid the negative effects listed above, would be to discredit him and get rid of him. Of course, if he happened to be mosly wrong on the science, he might still be treated the same way, but I believe, with slightly less passion. Greta Thunberg is another autist making claims that are seen as radical: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/neurodiversity-truth-telling/592465/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/neurodiver... Basically, she's claiming that we have until 2028 to prevent a climate catastrophe: https://www.fastcompany.com/90453825/greta-thunberg-we-have-eight-years-to-save-the-earth https://www.fastcompany.com/90453825/greta-thunberg-we-have-... Now, let's again pretend that she's 100% correct. That starting in 2028 we will start to see chain reactions that make much of the planet unlivable within her lifetime. If she's right, and we admit it, we will all be forced to completely reorganize society. Gasoline fueled cars may have to be banned, and air travel almost completly disbanded. And we should all become vegeterians, and we would need to radically reduce our consumption of all sorts of both industrial and digital products. Also, any housing with high per capita heating requirements might have to be torn down, and people forced to move into much smaller units. Also, most middle aged or older person would have to accept that they were the ones nearly destroying Earth, until people like Greta came along as saviors. A lot of shame would be in order. Now especially if this were all 100% accurate, a lot of people would become extremely angry at her, and might want to do a lot more than simply punshing her. Clearly, her message is not taken very seriously. Politicians are paying lip service to her, but no state is seriously attempting to take the kind of radical action she is demanding. Instead she's seen by many as something of a heroine or perhaps a mascot. And if anyone actually wants to do something violent against her, THEY are the problem, not her. As it should be. But why is Damore treated like the Devil, while Greta was invited to speak in front of the UN?