James Damore's internal Google memo was "not an unhinged rant", but it cited irrelevant scientific generalities to advocate giving sexism free rein inside Google. Here's a clear explanation.

There is good reason to fire anyone who posts an unhinged sexist rant within a company. Such rants harass, directly. I don't see that it is necessary to fire people for non-ranting postings that propose a sexist policy. The proposal itself does no harm unless it is adopted. Wouldn't firm rejection of the proposal suffice?

Reading well-veiled fallacies can be exasperating, but that is not the same as being harassed.

Once Damore had been fired, he jumped into bed with right-wing extremists that are known for unhinged rants.

Perhaps he wrote the internal memo with careful restraint, aiming to persuade Google staff, but now shows his true nature.

I can envision the possibility that a firm rejection, without firing, would have kept him restrained and avoided helping the bigots.