Outraged about the Google diversity memo?

I feel as if could be called slightly right of center. That being said, I use logic to evaluate different issues then rank them in importance to me. In November, I voted for a third party candidate because I had serious issues with both main party candidates. That said, I seriously considered tossing aside my moral issues with Clinton and voting for her as a vote against Trump because I saw a scenario (which ended up happening) where Trump could win.

Nine months later, my position has completely flipped. If Trump runs in three years, I am seriously considering voting for him as a "fuck you" vote due to the reaction to his election and Presidency over the last 9 months. I grew up and live in a rust belt city that used to be a manufacturing center. The complete slander, and misunderstanding, of the people I grew up and live with is incredibly difficult for me to swallow. I'm sure that everyone would love a former President who is campaigning for his wife coming into their back yard and disgustedly refer to them as "coal people," while expecting their vote. [1] When it is repeatedly espoused that we don't understand what we voted for, or when a SF elite tells a us that we need to be fixed to attract people with the right ideas [2], or that we should simply move to a place where there are jobs (friends, family, and community be damned) it gets harder and harder to explain that it isn't that simple. And when we try to explain what we feel or we believe we are told that someone else has it worse and to just adjust so that we can be accepted. I'm tired of being labeled as a racist or homophobic and being told my opinions are so obviously wrong, they are not even worth discussing.

So, yes. There are definitely people who aren't going to speak out, who are going to toe the line, and then they will cast a giant "fuck you" vote come November 2020. I might be one of them, but I will probably end up voting 3rd party again instead of letting my emotions get the best of me.

As an aside, follow Chris Arnade [3/4] on twitter. He does great work covering the Rust Belt and similar areas in a balanced perspective.

[1] http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/09/09/hundreds-gather-in...

[2] https://ethicsalarms.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/melinda_bye...

[3] https://mobile.twitter.com/Chris_arnade

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/profile/chris-arnade

Many employees felt intimidated and that they now had to prove in a work setting that they are not "more neurotic on average than men". This is about human relationships. If enough people say they felt intimidated, how can anyone dispute that? Can you prove they didn't feel intimidated? Can I prove they did feel intimidated? No to both questions. It's not in the domain of science or facts. It's in the domain of human relationships and emotions.

> If, as you say, it's a fact,

I said it was a fact? Where? I actually don't care if it's a fact or not. It just doesn't mean a lot to me either way.

> then how can it be harassment?

Easy. There is zero relationship between facts and harassment. I can tell the truth and harass you. I can also lie and harass you.

If I pass your workspace every day and say "You have a smaller penis than the average man and some people here are better at programming than you" does it matter whether both of those are facts? It's still clearly harassment. Unless we have an inside joke.... human relationships are far more complex than science. No wonder so many of us would like to shoehorn everything into black and white scientific facts!

> You cannot have reasonable discussions, if you dismiss what you consider to be true facts because you consider them to be harassment.

Of course you can. A reasonable discussion around your penis size at work wouldn't include facts about your penis size. The reasonable discussion would be "that's inappropriate and if you don't leave me alone I'll report you to HR for harassment."

You are confusing "facts" with "appropriateness". One is a scientific concept, the other is a social concept. The two have almost nothing to do with each other.

> the author claims that his memo had notes to supporting evidence

It might be interesting, but it doesn't matter in the least in this case. The domain isn't science. Per the Google code of conduct, it expects "each Googler to do their utmost to create a workplace culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, bias and unlawful discrimination."

Do you see anything about science in the code of conduct? Or is it talking about culture and human relationships?

If I'm unhappy or unsatisfied with something that I'm not in an immediate position to change, I'll get a job elsewhere. I want to control if and when that happens, which means no whining or complaining, even if I'm asked to. It's not worth the risk.

Here's the video of the interview.