> It also has evidence of physicasl threats. Those made it to the recently dropped/dismissed NLRB complaint, and it seems (was mentioned in a thread on HM, for sure) that peple involved had received very stern slaps on their wrists.
Please do put a link if you can find it easily. Wading through the history on HN is non-trivial. I will certainly accept legally filed complaints as evidence.
And, they damn sure should have gotten more than slaps on the wrist for threats of physical violence.
> he did a) what Google asked him to do -- provided feedback
And even if I were doing this on a technical issue, I'm going to make sure my arguments are solid before I send it into the ether if the issue is going to cause political grief. That's just common sense.
> stronger than any debunkings of his memo
This one from the Economist is a good general start (I chose the Economist because it doesn't really fall in the "liberal rag" category that most people would place things like Salon, Wired, etc.)
https://www.economist.com/news/international/21726276-last-w...
There are lots of other problems with his memo that the whole "social science" field that he is quoting has come under strong dispute in the last decade or so.
The most significant point is that Damore ignores any evidence that doesn't support his point. If you're going to be controversial, you have to explain the stuff that doesn't agree with you as well.
> But faulting him for being fired over a memo that he didn't leak
I thought he explicitly posted it to internal Google circulation. I really hate how it moved to the press (people who did THAT should be fired as well), but I do not believe that he simply gave a confidential memo to HR and then it got leaked. Please do correct me if I am wrong.
Should Damore have lost his job? In my opinion, no.
However, only an idiot goes looking for bear without a really big gun and being surprised when he gets mauled.