[metalliqaz]

That would only be true if the criticism was "motivated reasoning" and nothing else. Going on to cite and discuss evidence for your claim is a good argument.

You could say the same about "ad hominem" or "straw man". I could just argue against anything by saying those things, even if they aren't true.

Let's look at motivated reasoning in this case. Google has diversity initiatives. What is their motive? Google exists to make money for their shareholders, the greatest beneficiaries being the executives and the board. Google has determined that they can be more successful (and therefore make more money) by being inclusive. Seriously now, how likely do you think it is that a company like Google is willing to give up their technical edge?

[benchaney]

> You could say the same about "ad hominem" or "straw man". I could just argue against anything by saying those things, even if they aren't true.

These sorts of arguments are easy to refute. Motivated reasoning is impossible to prove in either direction.

[metalliqaz]

I disagree with that. And even if it was, what difference would it make? Between two people with incongruous assertions, one has to be wrong.