The respondent said there were "people who have been fighting neo-Nazis for decades" so "don't try to do this alone". "They're nice people (generally). Get to know them. If you don't know where to find them, try an Occupy group ... or just find Black, Latina/Latino, or Muslim activists and ask how you can support them.
"I won't say violence has no place, but if you are going to be doing anything risky, I can't overemphasise the important [sic] of networking with people who've been thinking about scenarios like the one we're in for years, and building relationships with them. We are only powerful if we organise."
They went on to advise using encryption to hide their activities online. "Working at Google I'm sure you understand how interconnected everything online is," they wrote. "And it should be pointed out that this list is not truly anonymous. The government could issue a subpoena to provide names on this list and Google would have to comply."
In a separate post, employee Matthew Montgomery voiced support of violent protests by drawing comparisons to WWII. "We went to war over this s***," he wrote. "We did not set up a roundtable with Churchill, FDR, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, et al. We killed Nazis until the Nazis stopped.
"To paraphrase MLK, punching a Nazi is the language of the oppressed. MLK was pretty clear that you need BOTH the threat of violent and nonviolent resistance for the latter to be an effective threat. MLK refused to condemn more violent elements of the civil rights era despite repeated calls because without that threat, they'll just keep killing you.
"This is why I refuse to condemn rioters, or punching Nazis. This is targeted, political, defensive violence. It's what happens when you leave otherwise nonviolent people with no other choice."
In August, employee Tim Chevalier wrote that there was "literally only one reason an anti-fascist would be violent towards you: you are a fascist".
"People don't commit anti-fascist violence except in response to fascist violence," he wrote. "It's perfectly reasonable to expect a violent response to the expression of hate speech because hate speech is itself violence."
Another employee, Rachel Blum, wrote, "If you subscribe to an ideology that, as a matter of fact, wants to kill people because they are different — and has, by the millions — then you deserve being punched in the face. Repeatedly."
Another post shows Google manager Kim Burchett suggesting a public blacklist of political conservatives inside the company, who would be subjected to "something resembling a trial" before being added.
"I am considering creating a public-inside-Google document of 'people who make diversity difficult'," she wrote.
"I am thinking of something like a Google doc that accepts comments, and which calls out those Googlers who repeatedly make public statements that are unsupportive of diversity, with links to those statements so that readers can decide for themselves.
"The list will be open to contributions from others, but I personally will be the judge of what is included and what is excluded. I will do my best to represent the individuals fairly, compassionately, and in context.
"I expect the list to start with just a handful of people, and if it ever grows to more than 0.5 per cent of Googlers then I will delete it as a failed idea. Things I'm still pondering: should inclusion on the list require something resembling a trial? Should people be removed after some period of time if they start behaving better?"
A large number of messages show employees attacking white people. One post promoted an online workshop titled "Healing from Toxic Whiteness to Better Fight for Racial Justice", while another advised that "if you are white/male/heterosexual/[insert majority group here], there are times to just shut up and listen".
"By being a white male you are in a privileged class that is actively harmful to others, whether you like it or not," another post read.
In a separate post, employee Scott Bruceheart wrote, "Dear all the white people: do not put the burden of relieving your systematic racist discrimination on the people that aren't white. It is not the responsibility of the victim to end the victimisation. It is the responsibility of the victimiser to stop being terrible."
In April 2017, manager Chris Busselle posted a message suggesting that employees should "wield your influence" to attempt to have "cheesy white males" removed from speaker line-ups at conferences.
"Next time you get invited to speak at a conference, especially if you're a white male — ask the organiser to confirm if you're the only white male on the panel / in the speaker line-up," he wrote.
"If not, say you're honoured, but must decline, and give the reason. And because you are at Google, guess what — they're going to change the panel for you. You'll feel bad about inconveniencing them.
"But not that bad. When the cheesy white male executive is in the 'green room' and glaring at you because he was bounced for the panel in favour of a woman on his team, you'll feel pretty damn smug."
Elsewhere, Antonio D'Souza reposted a message from another board, praising the "mea culpa submission" from a fellow employee which said, "I (a white Googler), in an attempt to build rapport with a Black Noogler and demonstrate my lack of ignorance of Black History, ended up whitesplaining Black History to him ... thereby demonstrating my ignorance of Black History in the process.
"A few minutes later, feeling like a complete idiot, I went back to him and apologised for whitesplaining."
In another post to an internal message board called "poly-discuss", one employee asked for advice on "outing yourself as a poly" — apparently referring to "polyamory", or having more than one partner.
In response, a colleague said they usually say something "explicit" to the people they work with, such as, "I'm crashing at the office tonight because my wife is having her boyfriend over and I wanted to give them the house."
In a statement on Tuesday, a Google spokesman said, "We look forward to defending against Damore's lawsuit in court."
