No, it isn't. Not when many of their female employees were willing to leave the company, and when the existence of that manifesto would make their recruiting efforts much, much harder.
Basically, all of them say that, while men and women are not purely identical, the differences between them are nowhere near as great as the manifesto makes them out to be. The purely biological differences have little to no bearing on coding ability, and the bigger issues are societal. Like the effect of having something like this coming out on young women who hear it as being told that they're not welcome in tech.
This idea that one can only disagree with it because they haven't read it is extremely uncivil, and does nothing but attempt to shut down the discussion here.
Both of those theses are quite sexist, and no, neither one is appropriate for discussion in the workplace. Especially a workplace that wishes to appear as welcoming for all, not just conservative white men.
"By doing it in an anti-science, anti-evidence way"
But they didn't. That man's argument was not science. It wasn't. There was absolutely no scientific evidence behind his argument. He misrepresented studied, and he cherry picked what he wanted. For more on that, check here: http://blog.goldieblox.com/2017/08/open-letter-james-damore-... It's an article from a female engineer who read the manifesto, and takes issue with the conclusions drawn from the studies.
The ones claiming that his manifesto was "scientifically sound" are those who are anti-science and anti-evidence.
"They could have simply said that they were taking punitive actions and kept him in the fold."
No, they couldn't. By keeping him, they would be legitimizing his views. And by doing that, they would be further alienating all of their female employees, and a lot of others, both current and future. Just about no woman would want to work there, knowing that they endorse those viewpoints.
"Healthcare, like, the mandatory profits for insurance companies?"
Like the end to discrimination against pre-existing conditions. Like the end to yearly and lifetime caps on coverage. Like the end to insurance companies just being able to drop you the minute you get sick.
"Immigration is a loaded topic."
No, it's not.
"And calling an argument intellectually lazy is being "intellectually lazy" itself."
No, it's not. It's pointing out the faults in your argument.
"You're delusional if you think the Democrats and Republicans by and large have any real interest in the American people."
And you're far too cynical if you think they don't, or if you think that they're the same.
"If you vote Democrat you're just as bad (maybe worse since you should know better) as Republicans."
Wrong. No matter how much you hope that they're the same, they are not. Again, all it takes is looking at the various issues facing people today. Healthcare. Immigration. Minority rights. Voting rights. For you to say they are equally as bad is for you to say you have never actually looked at anything, and want an excuse not to.
I have absolutely no respect for lazy people like you who don't even bother to look at the issues, and just choose the easy way out. Do not bother responding back with another easily disproven and shot down argument.
No, I got exactly what you wrote. I don't buy it, and I incredibly do not buy this bunk idea that the disagreements are entirely superficial. To those millions who would have lost health coverage under the GOP plan, do you think that difference was "entirely superficial"? To the transgender people who are having their ability to exist in public spaces assaulted by the GOP, do you think those differences are "entirely superficial"? To the masses of people being deported solely for committing the crime of wanting a better life for them and their family, do you think the differences are "entirely superficial"?
And saying that people who disagree with you just "don't know what they're talking about" is incredibly intellectually lazy.
Only if you're intellectually dishonest, or you've not been paying attention. For instance, how many parties are actively trying to suppress minority voters?
They're being downvoted because their point, and yours, is absolutely bunk. You pick one or two token things on which they agree, and ignore an entire host of issues on which they have significant differences.
No. This both-sidesism is laughably wrong. There are extremely clear distinctions between the two parties. Anyone claiming they are the same is either intellectually lazy or corrupt.
You don't see anything wrong with the company being it's own ghostwriter? The company, who is clearly going to agree with the contents that are charitable to itself?
You assign it. Everyone knows that there's going to be some of that; that's why it's called "work". But you have to make sure to spread it around as best you can, so that one person isn't constantly being bombarded with the crappy tasks. Maybe after they're done, give them first choice of other tasks.
While most of those boil down to the most common reason: Crappy management, I'm not seeing the second most common reason: Crappy pay (which is just another way that Crappy management presents itself).
Isn't that the problem, though? Bitcoin was supposed to be a medium of exchange. Cash for the internet, in other words. Investing means that people really aren't going to be doing that, and it's just going to sit on a dusty flash drive on the shelf.