It is definitely not splitting hairs. The "but Google asked him to do it and then fired him" line of defense hides relevant details. He wasn't assigned to write it, he wasn't assigned to publish it, and he wasn't assigned to not back down despite how much trouble it was causing.

It's true that sharing opinions is a common activity. But that again elides key facts. A highly political document attacking company programs and company culture was not the sort of thing people normally pass around for discussion.

Your notion that Damore just, gosh golly, thought he was sharing some helpful feedback is hard to square with the content or with his subsequent behavior both before and after his firing. I think what fits better with the text and his behavior is that he was engaging in political activism, and was well aware that he was going to cause a stir.

I agree that it's possible Damore wouldn't have ended up being fired under a variety of circumstances. Maybe it's true that if it hadn't hit the press, he'd still be there. Although given that what made news was the level of internal upset it was causing, he could well have been fired anyhow. And regardless, any employee should know that, "Don't cause the company a giant PR problem" is a reasonable rule to follow. Indeed, that apparently is explicitly part of Google's orientation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23124750

Damore was asked to provide feedback at the diversity program. He did and shared his document for internal feedback and discussion. Damore was fired for this.

Your objection is that saying "Google" did each of those things "hides relevant details". I disagree given that I've explicitly stated those details in this thread. Taking a single sentence and complaining it lacks details which are readily available in the wider context seems like splitting hairs.

Your point about "what fits better with Damore's text and behavior" may be your opinion. I don't share it though based on Damore's text clearly offering suggestions to improve diversity and different ways to think about it. To me, it seems much more likely Damore interpreted the Google diversity people as being honest actors and gave his honest feedback.

Your final point about how Damore should've known he would be fired is true, and I agree he should've realized Google is not an honest actor and doesn't want genuine feedback. That's kind of beside my broader point though, which is to highlight Google's lack of integrity in this instance. Damore was naive and trusted Google, he should've known not to. We agree there.

Setting that point aside, do you think if Damore was genuinely trying to give advice, and I know you don't think that, that he should've been fired for it?

I think a person genuinely trying to give advice doesn't act the way Damore did.

But let's say you're right, that his very best effort to collaborate with his colleagues was a divisive attack on their politics. That his very best effort to collaborate involved sticking to his guns to the point it was causing a major internal problem, and then a notable external one. In which case, he's so uniquely bad at collaboration that I don't think they could do anything other than fire him.

But personally, I don't think Damore was almost uniquely incompetent.

Damore's memo was not a "divisive attack on their politics". On the other hand, lying about his memo to describe it that way does seem like a divisive attack.

I don't think you're being honest or fair here and don't see the benefit of continuing a conversation with you.

The go link was "pc-considered-harmful". I think Damore clearly understood that what he was doing was political. And starting from "PC", a right-wing caricature of left-wing positions, could not be anything other than divisive. If you'd like to argue that was somehow all accidental, that he was just incredibly bad a communication, feel free.

I'm being perfectly honest, and I'm doing my best to be fair. If you don't like that, well, I did my best.

I strongly object with characterizing being inclusive and mindful of how your speech affects others as a "left-wing positions". It's basic politeness.

I certainly would think so. But nonetheless, the US right has been attacking the US left for that for decades. As long as the politeness is being applied to historically disfavored groups, anyhow.