None of it's nonsense that I can see; a lot of it is jargon laden and clearly expecting people not have a lot of context people outside of Google wouldn't to understand details beyond the general shape of the point. And it's “poorly written” from the perspective of a formal document as it's fairly stream of consciousness without a lot of editing for structure, but it was a posting to an internal, by most accounts I've seen fairly informal, discussion group, but Google seems to be notorious for (1) having these, (2) encouraging their use for informal internal discussion aimed at improving the environment including critiquing internal cultural problems, and (3) intermittently deciding to treating the fact that people took them seriously about #2 as key factors in termination.
I agree it's poorly written - just like her twitter, and it even sounds nonsensical, but why is it nonsense?
The basic point seems to be that she has been handled differently than others (discrimination), made to wait a lot; and that she has been handled a "final decision" without any explanation, which she tries to present as a big no-no and against any inclusion effort that Google officially virtue signals.
Furthermore her point about how OKRs don't incentivize what officially is Google's policy (diversity, equity/egality, inclusion) seems like a solid point. Ironically Damore's memo tried to make the same "data driven" argument, and that made Google's blessed diversity team look pretty foolish, so he got fired because his style was also poor and nonsensical.
