Ask HN: What happened to our willingness to discuss opposing views
The irony here is incredible, given what the entire nation (much less tech) is discussing this right now.  Inside Google, outside Google.  The discussion is happening.  To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.<p>It appears what you are in fact arguing is that there should be no <i></i><i>consequences</i><i></i> for speech.  That has never, in the entirety of human history, been true (certainly not in a corporate context).  From Athens sentencing Aristotle to death for expressing an unpopular idea, through Todd Aiken losing an election, to getting fired from Google today for writing a manifesto--Speech has consequences.  The speaker bears the burden of accepting those consequences (good or bad), and making the determination that the audience to whom she is speaking will inflict consequences.<p>I, for example, do not discuss political&#x2F;religious things with one of my supervisors, because I know it will not end well. She tries, and so I smile and nod and leave quickly.  That does not mean I do not have the right to speak.  I simply weigh the consequences given the circumstances and act accordingly.  Outside of work--even to other coworkers--the calculus is different, and I act differently.<p>This is how it has always been.  If you can provide examples otherwise, I&#x27;ll be happy to address them.