I often find that the usual so-called defenders of free speech do not hesitate for one moment with that libel charge whenever they encounter an opinion they happen to disagree with.

We know that "Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics." is factually false, considering that what should it be called if not libel?

> Google, a private corporation

Which by the way told its employees that they were free to publish their opinions and Damore acted on that premise.

I often find that those whose favorite rethorical tool is lying much prefer to slander their opponents rather than attempt to refute their points.

ditto.

You did understood he was referring to you, right?

free speech gives you certain right to say what you want to say, and express your opinion. It even lets you give your opinion on other peoples opinions.

It doesn't allow you to state as fact that someone holds an opinion that they do not. You can express an opinion, but there are limits on stating falsehoods, especially wrt other people.

you say "encounter an opinion they happen to disagree with", implying your statement about the memo is just your opinion, but you didn't say it in any way that suggests it was that subjective; and, making any unsubstantiated claim about a person is on shaky ground even if you did make it clear it was just opinion.

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. " was of course a proposition, not advanced,but the propasition that it could not be debated was put forward.

Newsflash!! This was being debated 30 years ago. No evidence ever found, apart from < 50% women in STEM

So whatever the truthity fairly idiotic

Not completely false.

"Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership."

Which could be interpreted, honestly, as saying...

"women and minorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics"

That seems an acceptable interpretation only if it also means that "men and majorities could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics."

Because both are encompassed by the more general "people could be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics."

And that's of course not the only interpretation possible, but the one you choose. You say it's because of "capability" but you could look at it in terms of "inclination", "interest", "comparative advantages" or other angles.

He literally had a list of suggestions for increasing the number of women in tech.

Much of the thrust of his essay was a critique of the methods being used to increase diversity, not of the goal or the feasibility of achieving the goal.

It was a technical critique. This method won’t work, kind of critique.

"Differences in traits" doesn't mean "incapable". You know what happens if you take a whole population and deprive them of adequate calcium and protein in their early years? You get a "difference in traits" as to their height. Damore made no Essentialist claims about race or gender. He was just trying to be helpful in explaining an observed phenomenon at one causal level back.

Mangalor said "should" rather than "could". Even then, I do not think that it could be interpreted like that. He talks about distributions of traits, the sentence that you quoted did not put minorities in a single box.