In other words, in theory, he was taking advantage of a space specifically designed for this sort of thing. People who took offense leaked what he wrote, likely in an effort to build external pressure to punish the wrong-thinker. Wired reports that screenshots of the forums show Damore enjoyed support from a number of fellow 'Googlers,' many of whom were angry that the privacy of their forums had been violated. Much of the media coverage of the firestorm has wrongly or lazily characterized the content of the manifesto as "anti-diversity" and a "rant" or "screed." Reading it dispels both notions. Agree or disagree with Damore's points, his tone is measured, and the content is presented relatively dispassionately. These are not embittered ravings. On the very first page, he offers a summary of his arguments:
- Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
- This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
- The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
- Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
- Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
Comment: Four scientists from the field beg to disagree with the WJS's characterization of Damore's assertions as "pop-psychology.
Four scientists respond to the Google Memo on diversity