Sure, readers don't have to interpret what you said as "being himself must mean being an asshole," but when you say that being yourself would get you fired, some flavor of "asshole" is probably high any anyone's list for the type of attitude/personality that would cause such an extreme reaction. Can you expand on what sort of being-your-self attributes are not professionally disruptive, but would still get you fired?

I mean, I can think of plenty of hobbies/cultural differences/etc., that could make things awkward between colleagues, but not much that would get you fired. "Wow, Bob likes to go Skiing in a Furry costume while voting Republican and being an Atheist. We can't have that, let's fire Bob." doesn't seem all that likely of a reaction.

Again, you describe things that might be awkward, and even then it's only awkward if the people make them so. It's not at all fraught with "you're fired" potential if everyone remains calm and professional about such differences. Not only that, but you're think it ng entirely too narrow if "being yourself" only means expressing political and cultural beliefs.

Otherwise, I work in an environment in an industry that is much further "to the left" than SV Tech: academe. You may not believe it, but despite the cliche ostracism of "OMG that's a ::hushed tones:: conservative", it is quite easy to be one without self censoring. You simply refrain from injecting situations with those views when they're not called for, and if they are or you decide to do so during non-work times (breaks or side conversations) you be respectful of the other opinion. In short, don't be an asshole.

I get along with plenty of people all along the political spectrum at work, because we have an environment of respect and professionalism.

>You simply refrain from injecting situations with those views when they're not called for

In other words, you tend to avoid sensitive topics at certain times.

That isn't "not being yourself" unless you refrain from discussing those topics even when it might be called for. In my roughly two decades of experience working in academe, I have not suffered negative consequences for speaking unpopular opinions when they are relevant, nor have I ever seen someone suffer the same.

But, if in every meeting I attended I went on a rant about how 4-year colleges inflate student debt for marginal gain and future earning potential (yes, the issue is more complex than that) then I would be labelled some flavor of asshole, unprofessional, etc.

However, consider the context of admissions standards and policy for the institution. It would not be inappropriate to discuss aspects of that idea. How some segment of our population may not be good fits for the institution or 4 year college in general, that they would be better served by some other path of advanced education and job training, and how it is part of our job to set students on a good path rather than chase tuition dollars that put the student in debt for no likely tangible benefit. That would be appropriate to do, and in fact I do this on a somewhat regular basis, backed up by rigorous data analysis (my own area of work) from both my own institution and national data, when we are setting enrollment goals and other related benchmarks.

It's also been perfectly fine for me to discuss other controversial/unpopular opinions with colleagues outside of meetings during non-work related breaks or side conversations so long as I do so respectfully. Roughly two decades of steady career advancement would indicate that none of this has hurt me professionally: I have literally never failed to be awarded a promotion I was seeking, and quite contrary to negative consequences I have developed a reputation of speaking honest, unvarnished opinion backed by solid evidence.

I'm sorry to break it to you, but James D'amore was being an asshole.

Which part specifically of the GIEC memo was Damore being an asshole?

The whole thing was unnecessary and not part of his job AFAIK. It was also a giant, dressed up, thinly veiled "fuck you" to any of his female colleagues even if he didn't have proper social awareness to realize it. The scientific claims on gender differences were exaggerated and aloof, in part because even if you believe such a claim in terms of averages, making social determinations based on them ranges from flatly idiotic to against the law (for good reasons).

He should have stopped himself when he needed to add a disclaimer that he doesn't believe in prejudices and stereotypes. The need for such a statement is a giant red flag at which point one can ask themselves some critical questions.

When he is fired for this, a lot of conspiracy theories abound, up to and including in this thread. But he should work on the awareness to know what he was saying is a fireable offense by reasonable people. Apparently NLRB concluded the same.

This is all not the same as him being unforgivable or a bad person. In googling after this thread I noted an interview about him and autism. So he may very well deserve our sympathy and have an alternate explanation. The way people on forums like this one use him to allege a massive conspiracy at Google remains unwarranted despite this.

I think the problem is that people feel like they meet a lot of assholes, or more assholes than other types, and it puts them in a sour mood. They are predisposed to read your comment as such.