>>225210This is an interesting topic, but there are serious red flags with the Damore case.
1. Anyone who has read the memo will realize that the quality of writing is less-than-high-school-level. Damore cites biased, non-scientific sources (poorly) to justify very targeted scientific statements, which then supplement larger generalizations. I am not *disagreeing* with the crux of the memo, but it was a very poorly-written memo and the (((people))) standing behind it and claiming it as "science" were most certainly controlled opposition.
2. His claims about being fired from Jewgle for his political ideology may not pass serious muster in court, given that his memo was 1) Quite passive-aggressive towards female colleagues, even by Silicon Valley's standards of passive-aggressiveness, and 2) Not necessarily protected under California law or by Google's handbook (allegedly). One could argue that he was making an "unsafe work environment" while also being disruptive to the work environment.
3. His claims for being unfairly fired will almost certainly not pass muster in court (even though that *was* why he was fired), while the *many legitimate claims* of Google encouraging internal harassment of employees are legitimate. It is highly-likely that the judge allowed Damore's case to go through because various parties would like the plaintiffs' very legitimate failure-to-prevent-harassment claims to be rejected.
TL;DR: Damore is only being allowed to proceed because his case is itself controlled opposition. Case law resulting from here will make it much harder to enact cases about companies failing to prevent harassment (e.g. actively encouraging it) on the basis of political orientation, gender, religion, etc, as long as it is not judeo-bolshevik.
