That line of stoic reasoning really justifies anything though. Like, my co-workers should manage their anxiety just because I like to work with a firearm strapped to my chest and 2 grenades on my desk.
But I think you can see that too. If you assume his ideas are correct:
1. His letter becomes well received, my employer changes their hiring policies
2. The current gender ratio was propped by non-gender-neutral hiring practices, without them, that will change back in-line to the base rate
3. My job is in danger
Is anxiety over losing one's job justified?
Or, another line:
1. His letter is well received, but my employer doesn't change their hiring policies
2. My co-workers now think that I have my job not because I earned it but because of the non-gender-neutral hiring practices
3. My job is in danger
I can produce more, but at the end of the day they all threaten either status or jobs, so I don't fault why people would defend their interests with all their effort.
Edit: Besides, those same arguments apply against the diversity advocates. They openly claim that white men dominate the industry because of sexism, that they don't hold their positions because of merit but because of bias. They're guilty of the same crime they accuse Damore of committing.
Also, calling it "citing peer-reviewed research" is sort of missing the point. How about "politely and scientifically insinuating that some of my co-workers wouldn't be working here if it weren't for social programs at the company" which can be taken for insult. The validity of the research is besides the point.
So no, Damore is not responsible for people not "managing their emotions", he's responsible for not forseeing that people would not "manage their emotions". As in, he should have known better than to insult people at work.
Going back to guns, some people like to make demonstrations where they open cary in a Starbucks. They mean no harm, they're within the bounds of the law... but they're either counting on people to freak out to create media commotion or they're obtuse.
The author did no such thing - at least not without the caveat that their rejection would have been a false negative, which negates any implications about these co-workers abilities. And taking steps to reduce the false negative rate for diverse candidates is a pretty standard practice in bay area, see this past comment of mine for an example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953762
Other commenters have chimed in saying Google has similar policies, and the company openly states on their careers page that they're an affirmative action employer. If making a factually correct statement about the company's hiring practices is an insult, then it'd be prudent to rethink those practices.
sounds a bit more valid to me.
