You are taking it out of context. Do you dispute that a movement for 'social justice' can pose risks to 'innocent'/'good'/'fair' people (or however you want to phrase it), like any other movement (while a movement started in opposition to construction plans is less likely to result in construction of gulags than a movement trying to overthrow the government, one could think)? If no, we can move on.
I did not present an argument involving the police, that was an analogy in response to your, should we say vacuous, instruction to use empathy. Almost anything can be justified with an appeal to empathy. In and of itself, it is a pretty useless instruction.Also, just to be clear, whatever one's opinions on any relevant issue from policing to civil rights and on, that argument was - I don't even know what it was. Some kind of fallacy of the undistributed middle maybe? You can believe that black people need a boot on their faces forever and still recognize what you posted as totally invalid reasoning.
He didn't. I challenge you to quote any part where he did; I suspect that you haven't read his memo (or not particularly carefully).What Damore specifically did - essentially identify a class of his colleagues as inferior in his consideration
Requiring that people with the wrong opinion should be fired in other cases might not reduce the odds of what you describe here happening, for starters.As for the last part, journalists and lecturers in American media and higher education are frequently fired for expressing private left-wing viewpoints. What do you propose be done?
Bookmarks