>> Multiple people said Suleyman would sometimes scream at employees in group meetings and one-on-ones.

This is the behavior you're excusing? If my boss screamed at me, I would tell them to fuck off. I'm shocked you think this is OK behavior, especially from a Google executive.

People are human which means we sometimes lose our cool, but it also means, hey I'm a human so don't fucking scream at me.

If that is the worse accusation we’re hearing from an entirely 1 sided story - that’s pretty mellow. I’ve seen people accuse some of ‘screaming at them’, when they literally never raised their voice and just disagreed with them firmly in a meeting

Absolutely. It's possible to be firm/assertive while being polite. Not called "screaming". Even "screaming" is very low on the scale of "abuse".

Exactly - tell him to fuck off. Don't start a media campaign against his career. Tell him to fuck off directly. The "snowflake" aspect here is people not standing up for themselves, but calling on "society" to provide them with perfect bosses.

There was also a time where (regardless of if it were acceptable when they were a startup) this would be considered unacceptable at Google.

Not anymore, I guess.

"If my boss screamed at me, I would tell them to ** off"

The irony.

Toxic work environments are just a breeding ground for lawsuits and expose anyways

Being excessively sensitive to carefully chosen four letter words used appropriately for emphasis is a form of toxicity.

> The complaints in the article sound ridiculous

Or maybe they are so far removed from the actual events that you can not tell the seriousness of them from just a random news article?

Is it so hard to just trust the people who say his behaviour was awful?

I trust that the people felt his behaviour was awful. If they don't like working with him, they can switch jobs. Or even complain to higher ups and what not.

What is not OK imo is this appeal to some imaginary "societal moral court" that should somehow punish the guy.

Why are you arguing that awful behaviour should have consequences for those it is direct at, rather than for the person who commits it?

I said they felt he is awful. Maybe he felt they are awful, too. It is a thing that happens in human relationships, that people end up disliking each other. We have only heard one side of the story here.

It is a pretty normal thing that people don't get along with each other, for whatever reason. Just because one party goes public and frames the other as a horrible person, doesn't necessarily mean they really are.

If nobody who is disliked by somebody could become boss, there would only be very few candidates left.

What, exactly, is the other part of the story that you imagine would make his behaviour not awful?

There was not that much context to the story to begin with, so it is unclear how awful he really was.

Yes there was. There was a bunch of people who say he is. That is context.