Re: Just to clarify
>To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.
That wasn't what the document said. He was addressing (recruitment) programs and policies, not individuals. If we know women in general dislike solitary roles, could we not make the roles more social rather than running women-only recruitment programs?
What he said was: https://diversitymemo-static.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
I watched the Stefan M Interview too. It was painful. Damore appeared to want to be nice to his host, but S.M. kept trying to push Damore into saying things he really didn't want to say.
I know El Reg is a red-top but I do expect more journalistic integrity than what was presented in this article. He didn't pile into "what the left does wrong" or say or imply that "protecting women" was "something the left does wrong." He noted the biases on both right and left, not just listing "lefty" biases as the el reg list implies. Despite El Reg's assertion, there was no reason for Google to feel they had no choice but to fire Damore. It was neither hurtful nor offensive unless you are ideologically wedded to the idea that there are no differences between men and women. Damore said nothing about individual performance and explicitly denied that his memo was relevant to that, in the interview.
Some factual observations we can make from all of this are:
1. Damore lost his job and has poor judgement regarding interviewers.
2. Damore's assertion that Google tries to purge dissent rather than accepting or refuting it is confirmed by its action in purging him.
3. Google (and FB, Twitter and online publications) will make money from Damore being fired and the general outrage.