> The Google memo was hateful, anti-diversity, and he got exactly what he deserved (he was fired)

Yeah, this is flat out wrong. The "memo" (it wasn't a memo, but the media's gonna media) is publicly available and pretty short so we can trivially verify claims that it was "hateful" and anti-diversity. Notably, Damore's position on diversity via the document:

> I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more.

And his position on hate:

> Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ... Reducing people to their group identity is bad and assuming the average is representative ignores this overlap. (this is bad and I don't endorse that)

> According to his LinkedIn[0], he's been working at an unnamed startup for the past 4 years, so it's not like he was "cancelled" in any real sense.

I don't know anyone who defines "cancelled" as "permanently unemployable", but in any case I hope we can agree that getting someone fired for minor ideological differences is reprehensible. Maybe you would argue that these differences are very significant, but I don't see anything in the document that would fall outside of the American Overton Window (it's probably more moderate than many of his critics professed viewpoints on diversity, which is pretty obviously the actual reason he provoked such a reaction).

> And Lee Fang and David Shor are fine? I literally cannot find either controversy you're referencing on the front page of Google or Google News.

Lee Fang was harassed by colleagues and pressured to resign because he quoted MLK in support for non-violent protest and for Tweeting an interview with a black man who expressed concern about crime in his community.

David Shor is a data analyst who was fired for citing research on the efficacy of non-violent protest. He was fired because people on Twitter were contacting his company's management on Twitter and demanding his termination.

Of course, if your perspective is that firing someone for these kinds of minor ideological offenses is totally fine (so long as they're able to get another job?), then we're probably going to have to agree to disagree. That said, I doubt very much that the people celebrating or defending these terminations would be so cheerful when people on their side of the spectrum are terminated (and for whatever it's worth, I'm a left of center independent).

I think you’re missing the argument here for the red-team/blue-team stuff.

Regardless of team, if someone says or does something reprehensible, it ought to be condemned. That’s what these people did, and seems like they’ve moved on from there. Their lives go on, but you obsess over one chapter of their lives.

Just seems overblown for its own sake.

I’m not on either team; I get flack from both. These people were patently not doing anything reprehensible, which is the whole point. Specifically, they were transparently fired/harassed/etc for deviating from the party line.

> These people were patently not doing anything reprehensible

Says you. I say differently.

Agreed. Quite a lot of people think deviating from the party line is reprehensible, but these things are all squarely within the Overton Window irrespective of mine or your opinion.

I’m curious about why you find Fang, Shor, etc reprehensible though.

I’ve said multiple times I cannot find the controversy you keep claiming happened to those two people, which to me speaks more loudly than the actual controversy they supposedly had.

I pointed you multiple times to their Wikipedia pages. Here are some direct links to the specific relevant sentences (I didn't post them before because I was busy and on mobile and I didn't realize how burdensome you would find it to find and skim their wikipedia pages). I'll quote the relevant sections as well in case you have a hard time working those links.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Fang#:~:text=In%20June%202...

> In June 2020, Fang was accused of racism by Akela Lacy, a colleague at The Intercept. This occurred after Fang shared a Martin Luther King Jr. quote about remaining non-violent and tweeted out an interview in which a black man at a George Floyd protest expressed concern about black-on-black crime. Fang's tweets set off a "firestorm" on Twitter and he issued a lengthy apology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Shor#:~:text=On%20May%20....

> On May 28, 2020, Shor tweeted a summary of an academic study by Omar Wasow, a black political scientist at Princeton University, that argued riots following Martin Luther King Jr.'s assassination likely tipped the 1968 presidential election in Richard Nixon's favor.[19] Some critics argued that Shor's tweet, which was posted during the height of the George Floyd protests, could be interpreted as criticism of the Black Lives Matter movement.[20] Jonathan Chait wrote in New York Magazine that "At least some employees and clients on Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety."[21] Shor apologized for the tweet on May 29, and he was fired from Civis Analytics a few days later.

Here's the Tweet that Shor's colleagues felt threatened their safety:

> Post-MLK-assasination [sic] race riots reduced Democratic vote share in surrounding counties by 2%, which was enough to tip the 1968 election to Nixon. Non-violent protests increase Dem vote, mainly by encouraging warm elite discourse and media coverage. http://omarwasow.com/Protests_on_Voting.pdf

These events were also covered by other media outlets. Like the Wikipedia links above, you can easily find these via Google or any other popular Internet search engine.

So nothing at all to do with conservative voices being silenced, then. Why are we talking about them? You were asked for conservatives who were being silenced for saying conservative things, not generic times people got in trouble for saying things.

Kind of odd you equate racist statements with conservative statements. Why would that be?

We’ve already been over this. I wasn’t asked for conservatives who were being silenced—I was refuting the argument that the people being canceled or “called out” were saying reprehensible stuff. I certainly never equated racist statements with conservative statements. It seems like you’re not following the context of the thread and that’s adding a lot of confusion—clarifying basic thread context is not my idea of an interesting debate (not to mention repeating the same conversation about thread context) so I’m probably going to dip out.

You were asked for conservatives who were being silenced, not random people who had said inflammatory things, as that's the entire topic being discussed here. It's clear you can't come up with any, since you had to move the goalposts away from "conservatives" to "people you generally think got short-changed on the Internet".

I'm sorry again you seem confused, and again I hope you find clarity elsewhere, because this seems to have bothered you somewhat.