Damore's employer for example wasn't really targeted. I know, I worked there during the event. I commented on his doc before it was leaked to the press. Coworkers complained to Google leadership because Damore's document made them feel unwelcome. Ultimately it was for that reason that Damore was fired.

Anger? No. Revenge? No. Harassing employers? Not really. Scare tactics? I can't recall anyone threatening Damore inside Google. It might have happened externally, but wasn't widespread.

The issue that I keep trying to point out is that you're taking people's legitimate airing of concerns and claiming that it is done illegitimately. Ultimately you can't see other people's intentions. Framing all grievances you disagree with as illegitimate and made with only ill intent is a questionable practice.

You can make the argument that everyone lied: that no one really felt unwelcome due to Damore's document, and that Google leadership agrees with you that he did nothing wrong but felt pressured to fire him anyway and that... But at that point you're taking your own preconceptions and applying them to everyone else, and assuming that only your view of the world is valid and that everyone who doesn't take the same meaning away from something that you do is acting in bad faith. That's not solid ground for claiming that someone is a criminal (you can apply the same reasoning and get "everyone who disagrees with me is a criminal", which I hope you'd agree isn't just).

I read it and ignored it as a completely arbitrary constraint that you added.

> There are legitimate reasons to complain to someone's employer about their behavior.

Sure.

> Coworkers complained to Google leadership because Damore's document made them feel unwelcome.

This is not a legitimate reason. First of all, because no one can tell whether it's actually true, since it's an entirely subjective feeling, justified by an aberrant interpretation of what he wrote. Andf then because "makes me feel unwelcome" is ridiculous when it's the opinion of a single employee in a company of 120 thousand.

The objective fact is that a number of employees were angry at someone who expressed a political opinion they didn't like and mobbed their employer to have him fired. They can claim whatever subjective feeling as a reason for this.

> Anger? No. Revenge? No. Harassing employers? Not really. Scare tactics? I can't recall anyone threatening Damore inside Google.

So, you deny that the people who asked for him to be fired were angry? That's pretty curious. You believe they were "feeling unwelcome", a pretty vague feeling, but you aren't able to detect a primal, generic anger in their actions.

The firing can easily be interpreted as a revenge against someone who expressed a political opinion they didn't like. They mobbed the employers until they had to do something as drastic as firing him. And finally, they didn't threat Damore, they actually damaged him, implicitly threatening everyone else who might want to voice similar opinions.

> You can make the argument that everyone lied: that no one really felt unwelcome due to Damore's document, and that Google leadership agrees with you that he did nothing wrong but felt pressured to fire him anyway and that...

Exactly. And sorry, but I think that what happened is extremely plain, and it requires a lot of ideological contorsions to deny the anger, the harassment and the revenge, all based on vague purported "feelings", "asked for drastic action but not harassed", etc.

> is acting in bad faith

An individual acting in bad faith lies to others; an adherent to an ideology might lie to him/herself first.

Legally, it's quite an important constraint. If you're accusing people of criminal acts, you should, you know, actually be certain that the acts are criminal.

> This is not a legitimate reason.

Bluntly: of course it is. If I feel unwelcome in my workplace, I am encouraged to report it to my management. Psychological safety is incredibly valuable and is something that a lot of companies don't do enough to foster.

Put another way, if someone started posting swastikas around the office, I would be well within my rights to complain to the higher ups that those things made me feel unwelcome. There's no difference except that you feel one complaint is more legitimate than the other. They're still both complaints, made in good faith by those making them.

> So, you deny that the people who asked for him to be fired were angry?

Sure they were angry. But anger was not the specific reason the complaints were made.

> The firing can easily be interpreted as a revenge against someone who expressed a political opinion they didn't like.

Indeed, one is free to interpret the events that way. But that interpretation is no more valid than any other. In fact, it might be less valid given that courts ruled that that isn't why he was fired ;)

> They mobbed the employers until they had to do something as drastic as firing him.

Google was free to not fire him. My understanding is that it was debated, and that eventually executives decided that ethically firing him was the right decision. Could they be lying? Sure. But what makes you so certain that executives agree with you, but feel that their hands were forced? Is it so really unbelievable that a company might feel that it was ethically correct to fire Damore?

I'm not asking if it's harder for you, personally, to face that. Clearly you don't want to believe that, but your unwillingness doesn't make it false. Like, clearly a lot of people thought Damore did a bad thing. So many in fact that there were, to quote you, "mobs". Isn't it feasible that some of the decision makers were among them?

> and it requires a lot of ideological contorsions to deny the anger, the harassment and the revenge

But once again, the question isn't what you believe their goals to have been, it's what they believe their goals to have been. If the goal wasn't to harass, wasn't to get revenge, but instead to improve their workplace, it's not criminal. And I'll reiterate: courts have, on more than one occasion, ruled that Google was within their rights to terminate Damore for the stated reason of making others unwelcome.

You're creating a sort of thoughtcrime: if I complain about someone for the wrong reasons, I'm actually harassing the person that I'm complaining about, and I should go to jail. Also I don't get to decide what the wrong reasons are. You do. That's not just.

Intention matters, and that is usually left to the interpretation of the events. A judge or jury is free to decide what is the probable intention behind an action, whatever is the reason given by the accused.

> If I feel unwelcome in my workplace, I am encouraged to report it to my management. Psychological safety is incredibly valuable and is something that a lot of companies don't do enough to foster.

It's true, but to claim that the politely expressed and abstract opinion of someone makes you feel unwelcome is a stretch. And then, what about the feeling of being welcome and psychological safety of all those who might have a similar opinion? Which opinions this applies to? Am I free to go to the management and say that all those who speak of "white privilege" make me feel unwelcome and I want them to be fired?

> if someone started posting swastikas around the office, I would be well within my rights to complain to the higher ups that those things made me feel unwelcome

I don't really get this "makes me feel unwelcome". Being welcome or not is something between you and the company, not a single one of your coworkers. What you mean is that someone is a jerk and is repeatedly posting highly objectionable content. He might be then admonished to stop. End of the issue.

> Google was free to not fire him. My understanding is that it was debated, and that eventually executives decided that ethically firing him was the right decision.

Of course one can ignore the political pressure, media articles, and very vocal minority who asked for him to be fired. But then it becomes a different story.

> the question isn't what you believe their goals to have been, it's what they believe their goals to have been. If the goal wasn't to harass, wasn't to get revenge, but instead to improve their workplace, it's not criminal

If my idea to improve the workplace is to have all those who express feminist ideas to be silenced or fired, because as a male they make me "feel unwelcome", what do you think? Is it all fine?

> if I complain about someone for the wrong reasons, I'm actually harassing the person that I'm complaining about ... Also I don't get to decide what the wrong reasons are.

If I complain about the communists or the Jehova's witnesses because I don't like them, and I try to pressure the management into firing them, I am the one to be fired, not them. And I don't get to decide what the right reasons are. Seems simple to me.

The irony here being that this describes the Damore situation precisely.

> Am I free to go to the management and say that all those who speak of "white privilege" make me feel unwelcome and I want them to be fired?

Of course! I certainly don't hope that you'd be fired for that (nor do I think you would be in most places). You seem to be presupposing the reaction management will have, which makes me think that your problem isn't so much with cancelling, but with feeling unable to express your opinion that "white privilege" is a bad thing.

Now, you might not get what you want, which in this situation is perhaps the people who use the term white privilege to be fired. But that's because management doesn't find your complaint valid, which has been my point from the beginning. Your company has agency and culture that drives their decisions irrespective of what people say to them.

> If my idea to improve the workplace is to have all those who express feminist ideas to be silenced or fired, because as a male they make me "feel unwelcome", what do you think? Is it all fine?

My entire point, this entire time, is that individuals should be free to express the opinions they want, and companies should be able to act on those opinions by choosing to associate with who and how they want based on the company's values. If you can find a company that agrees with you and manages to avoid breaking employment law, more power to you. However if your company disagrees with the opinions you express, ultimately it is up to them what action they take. They are free to disassociate with you.

That's all cancelling is: individuals and groups choosing to use exercise their agency and freedom of association. And I support that. So yes, complain about whatever you want. But don't take umbrage when people choose, of their own volition, to disagree with you and to refuse to associate with you.

Ultimately, this is an issue that oppressed people have dealt with forever: that actions have consequences. It's great that society is getting to the point where everyone can face consequences for doing bad things.

> Of course one can ignore the political pressure, media articles, and very vocal minority who asked for him to be fired. But then it becomes a different story.

No one needs to ignore it. You however are ignoring everything else. That's my point.