Presumably the executives who fired him are intelligent people who can draw their own conclusions about what he did or didn't say.
(I find it revealing that the reaction on HN is fundamentally that Damore was fired by a conspiracy. The executives must actually agree with him but were "bullied" by woke people or something, as though it's not possible that corporate leadership could find what he said problematic).
In terms of firing people who don't deserve to be fired?
The thing you're claiming is that the company/decision makers think damore was right (or that his opinion was irrelevant) and fired him only to save face.
I don't think that happens regularly. I think sometimes someone points out that an employee is racist and the company fires that employee, but that's not "kowtowing", it's a combination of not working with assholes and taking customer feedback. I don't think the thing you're talking about happens much at all.
> I don't think the thing you're talking about happens much at all.
It doesn't happen much because it's not often a sufficiently large mob gets into a frenzy about firing someone. Can you point to any instances where the mob unjustly called for blood and the company/decision makers refused to kowtow? Brendan Eich was fired by a mob (consisting of Mozilla employees and Twitter users). His crime? Donating $1000 to a heretical political cause years earlier. Corporations always kowtow to the demands of sufficiently large mobs regardless of if the demands are just because not doing so means you'll have mutinous employees on your hands.
Fox news all the time, there were calls to fire some people responsible for firing timnit which never happened, etc. So yes. You just never hear about them because "company ignores Twitter drama" is the null hypothesis.
> Presumably the executives who fired him are intelligent people who can draw their own conclusions about what he did or didn't say.
Yes, but is it fair to say that they probably made the decision based on what's best for the business?
"Make the mob go away" is a rational decision to make. And one that's done all the time in this world of public shaming (see book "So you've been publicly shamed").
Damore does not have a cash value higher than the productivity lost by many other employees turning into a mob instead of working.
Maybe they would have fired him without the mob. But I don't think so.
> Damore was fired by a conspiracy.
No, I say by mob justice (the mob) and capitalism (best decision for the business).
I don't think this is unsolvable/inescapable, and I think we need to solve this.
In my opinion DoS isn't speech. DoS prevents not just a the speaker from talking, but denies all the listeners hearing it. Just like fraud isn't "free speech".
It's not a paradox of free speech that I can't reneg on a verbal contract, or written contract.
Free Speech is about the free exchange of ideas. DoS is literally the opposite of that.
The right of your fist ends where my face begins.
It's possible to argue that it's speech to express your displeasure with a person or their position by interrupting them. And demonstrating or doing a stunt during speech, is fair.
But if it goes so far that your intention is no longer to communicate your displeasure, but to deny speech, then it's like claiming "freedom of movement" to move your fist into someone's face.
The line isn't clear, and I literally mean it's debatable.
