> There are many reasons outside of work performance to fire people. For example: someone who lies on their resume, then does a generally good job. That's generally a fireable offense in isolation from performance
Ok. "Work performance" may be too narrow in its obvious interpretation. What I mean is "quality of performance of your duties". Lying to your employer legitimately reduces trust that you'll continue to be able to perform your duties.
But let's say someone goes to private sex parties in their own time, full of consenting adults. That has nothing to do with your performance at work.
> You assert that the two I named were fired from public pressure, but that looks to me like self-confirmed speculation based on what you want to believe
Do you believe they would have been fired if this had not been made public?
You're right that I don't have proof, but I think my position here is self-evidently true.
> If the essay had actually named a figure like Damore, would it have been more convincing?
I think PG feared it would derail the discussion to just be about Damore. That his whole essay would be dismissed by large sets of people as merely "A Damore defence", without reading neither it or Damore's "manifesto".
And exactly as his essay describes it would be dismissed as x-ist, to shut down debate.
So… yes and no. It would be clearer, but risk being less effective in achieving his goals.
Also less timeless, which he explicitly mentions as a goal.