Isn't that what repercussions are?
If you aren't allowed to openly debate it in the first place, then we don't know if it is a good or bad idea. How can you give out repercussions when you don't know yet?
I see that James Damore was at a speaking event this week, where he had a scientist backing him up on proven biological differences between men and women, and the scientist was explaining how this is 100% accepted amongst biologists - more easily proven than human-caused climate change, for example.
So some people ripped the PA system out of the wall and started screaming that they were sexist, they were nazis, and they weren't wanted around here.
That is not a repercussion for a bad idea. That is totally irrational, unhinged people, refusing to accept the proven evidence, because it doesn't fit with what they believe is the ONLY idea. That's not right. Debate is needed - who gets to decide what is right and wrong when evidence is being ignored like that?
However, I'm not dismissing your point at all. Because what are the repercussions for bad ideas? That's a very good question and I don't know the answer. If instead of James Damore, it was, lets say, someone speaking about holocaust denial, claiming it didn't happen, I would be entirely comfortable with that behaviour against them. The evidence is clear. It happened. So what should the repercussions be for someone claiming it didn't? I don't know.
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/21/3576...
https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/201...
And the science backing him seems weaker than AGW
https://www.wired.com/story/what-james-damore-got-...
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/g...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/08/10/a-sc...
So lets continue the cycle shall we?
The science is really clear and that's frankly not it. It's notable that these links are opinions and blogs, or the findings of one scientist with zero peer review (plus their name actually withheld!), and for whom we don't know what their motivations/bias might be. Biological differences in men and women is an accepted consensus across biologists, moreso than human-caused climate change which everyone seems to be mostly accepting. It's only people with opinions and manipulated statistics like you've posted above that continue to muddy the waters.
My opinion is that you are the one continuing a bad cycle here, unfortunately.
However this is what free speech is about. That's your opinion, I don't expect to be able to change it, but I feel my opinion on this subject is correct on the balance of what I've read. None of that evidence was in any way compelling enough for my opinion to change.
There were far more convincing links on the previous page for the opposite argument, and even the simple fact I mentioned earlier about baby behaviour straight out of the womb is enough to debunk virtually all of it (in my opinion of course).
