You just need a Fox Mulder to put all of the pieces together.

Not even what I'm implying. Strawman arguments. This is why I never give you the benefit of the doubt. You purposely twist arguments in ways that are intellectually dishonest. I see it from a mile away.

The political will currently exists to get it done. It's not one of those things where forcing any litigation to stop it is going to work.

Look, another irrelevant statement to support your strawmanning!

I dunno, maybe you should stop making retarded statements, stop strawmanning, stop adding useless rhetoric, and actually discuss what I'm writing and not what you think I might be writing to get into one of those "gotcha" moments.

The wall is going to be built. The government will either easily seize the land, or build around it. They aren't saving billions of dollars by doing this. They are creating more government spending. Once the wall is built, there will be less money, because of them, to be spent on other government services that they probably really like. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.

Do you have anything else absolutely retarded to add that has nothing to do with what I'm discussing?

You can, but it's still pretty hypocritical. Government services cost money. If there's less of it to go around because you're purposely creating road blocks to quash initiatives that are more than likely going through, there will be less money to go around after those initiatives are completed, or become a continuous sunk cost. Their efforts would be better spent on donating to campaigns in what they feel are key states to get the right people in congress.

You can't bitch about the government not having enough money to pay for healthcare, and then in the same breath proudly claim you're doing things to cost the government more money.

It's good to see that you don't understand the memo.

Except he never said anyone was inferior based on their gender or race. He said people were different based on their gender. Different doesn't mean inferior. People are different based on their gender. Why is this so hard for people to understand?

Why must it have been submitted to journals? Why can't employees have ideas, right or wrongly, and discuss workplace issues that surround these things? Why is he not allowed to have these opinions? As far as "cherry-picked studies" is concerned, any contrary evidence I've seen has also been cherry-picked. Are people no longer allowed to discuss issues with each other even if they don't have all of the information?

You do realize that the memo was up for over a month, and he was changing it as he got feedback on it, right? There was no intention of marginalizing anyone, and if they felt that way, that's because they were thinking with their feelings. You need to back that claim up.

No, they fired him because it became public - they having lawsuits against them for gender wage discrimination, and being very public about their wanting to have gender parity in the company, and this memo looks bad in the politically ridden times we are in.

No goal posts have been shifted. Do you even understand what that term means? You want to cry about non-response's, but you make these wild accusations that are either completely wrong, or don't bother backing them up.

If you read the memo more carefully, without your rage blinders, pages 2 - 5, discuss the differences between men and women. He spells it out there. What part specifically do you not understand?

As far as him discussing race goes, he doesn't just casually lump it in there with gender biases. The whole discussion in the memo is about Googles diversity initiatives. That part seems to be more observational of what's happening at Google than anything else.

Perhaps in your next response could lay off the hyperbole and have an actual discussion, that is, if that's something you're capable of doing.

Way to miss-characterize Damore's memo. Damore's memo wasn't about one's ability to do the work, but that the gender differences means people are more or less inclined towards doing certain tasks. He even suggested ways Google could better reach their lofty goals of gender parity by taking advantage of that.

You asked if I understood the difference between opinion and a law.

The age of your account is probably close to 18 years old based on the user ID. In all this time you have yet to figure out that "thought police" isn't necessarily a reference to a legal entity, and that, the moderation system here is the way it is. It makes me wonder why you stick around participating in a system like this.

Generally speaking, I don't disagree with the overall theme of what you're trying to convey, but I do disagree with a couple parts of it. I'll address those below.

It's not unreasonable to call something flamebait, when the sole purpose is to "inflame". It's not unreasonable to call that a malicious act when you're doing that to malign someones character. It's all a carefully crafted narrative, perhaps not by AniMojo, but they are spreading it none the less. Let's be realistic here. Salon is a great example of an outlet that pushes social justice narratives through and through, and works to malign people they ideologically disagree with. It works well for Salon because people are driven by their emotions.

The links to tweets AniMojo posted previously to the Salon link are again, trying to somehow paint him as a bad person. There is next to no discussion around those ideas coming from AniMojo. It's more or less, "look at these ridiculous things he's saying!" Ok, why are they ridiculous? I have seen a lot of this on the Internet over the years and it's pretty easy to spot when someone wants actual discussion and when someone is pushing a narrative. This is narrative pushing, whether AniMojo realizes it or not. A more thoughtful post would have went into some discussion about this.

He lost his job because someone in Google made it public. While it was contained in Google for a month or so, no one fired Damore for it. Google will 100% try to protect their image given the recent lawsuits over wage discrimination and the fact that they're very vocal about trying to have gender parity. It's hard to say for 100% certainty that he would have kept his job at Google if this never went public, but the fact that a month later it was still fine until the public leak, I'd be willing to make that bet that he would still have his job.

Yes, that sounds like someone might have some malicious intent in their actions through and through.

That's not necessarily true. You can see things as a malicious act and not be offended by it. You don't need to deal in absolutes here.

You aren't the thought police. You don't get to decide what is and isn't the correct response. It's frowned upon to moderate and comment (anonymously). It's always been that way. This is why you can't comment and post under your username in the same discussions. If you do, it undoes any moderation that you did. You get to choose one option. Some people chose to moderate the content of your posts. Deal with it.

That's a subjective observation.

Not a single thing you wrote covers the fact that men and women are different, in part, due to biology. You're not even trying to refute it. No, instead, you would rather sort to name calling and telling me to fuck off precisely because you don't have an argument.