whiskyseagull

Crying "whataboutism" is just a way to deflect from charges of hypocrisy.

Do you think media outlets that lean left act in good faith when they interview controversial figures from the right?

Isn't it the left that has aggressively pushed politics into the workplace under the guise of fair treatment and equality?

That's convenient, so you would support people only willing to be interviewed by sympathetic interviewers who agree with them on controversial topics. How are these things supposed to be worked through if no one is willing to engage in a debate about them?

So to extrapolate, you believe that she was reasonably concerned that the Guardian might be a right wing tabloid that would twist her words?

Of course he still has the legal right to do it. The US hasn't gone so far yet, as other western countries have, to ban "hate" speech, and he hedged his arguments well enough that it would be hard to ban that kind of talk outright without exposing that you really don't care about the arguments, but that it's really about that he's daring to make them at all. That's why, in my opinion, he draws so much seething hatred - he was too careful about hedging and inviting discussion for the left to be able to dismiss him easily as a dumb retrograde hate monger, but they didn't want to address the arguments on the merits either (yes, I'm aware that there were exceptions, no need to list them, this is about the left as a whole). His speech has been effectively banned because he's been made a pariah and dismissed.

Of course the left hasn't completely won yet, so he's found a home in some parts of the right. But that's not the point, it's about what the left ultimately wants, and what we should expect if it wins. This serves as an example - the left is happy and comfortable when certain controversial points are suppressed and their advocates exiled.

"Would you force Googlers to work with someone they disagree with so strongly that they cannot be civil?"

Why can't they be civil? Is there a line where uncivil behavior is permitted because someone's thoughts offend you?

Point 2 is a red herring. No one is arguing that it wasn't in Google's short term interests to suppress thoughts that were controversial to a large part of it's work force. The debate, at least on the surface, is about whether his arguments have merit.

Underneath all that is the real debate: should we able to express ugly, unpleasant, or unfortunate truths in public as facts? The left lately seems to want certain things to be beyond discussion, and that list seems to grow as time goes on.

There's another irony in the article:

"Damore’s girlfriend has agreed to meet only after being assured that, like her, I disagree with her boyfriend’s views."

Unfortunately this has become typical in some parts of the left and that is why you see a resurgent right. Trying to maintain a position by refusing to hear arguments against it is not a good long term strategy and gives moral strength to the other side.