I really can't tell if you are being purposefully obtuse or not, but as implied by the quoted section, they are claiming the memo amounted to "harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination.". What I've been arguing is that the memo doesn't amount to these things, the part of my post you've decided to ignore and leave undressed. And those assertions categorically do not rely on my personal interpretation and system of beliefs, rather, those assertions are all couched in the relevant, empirical, psychological and biological literature.
This is irrelevant.
The first part of the extract of the Code I quoted, i.e. the two paragraphs immediately after the 'Support Each Other' headline, is irrelevant to this case. I included it in my quote because it says there is an 'Employee Handbook' which might be relevant.
Your interpretation based on the first of these two paragraphs that "they are claiming the memo amounted to 'harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination' is therefore unjustified.
Further, the wording of the paragraph, "we are committed", "Googlers are expected to do their utmost", shows it's an introduction to what follows. It's not actionable in itself. It can't provide the necessary formal basis for what they say they reproach to this guy.
So do you accept what I've stated about the memo? Because in that case, they are claiming that making non-controversial propositions about psychological and biological phenomena and discussing how they might impact the demographics of hiring amount to "harassment, intimidation, bias, and unlawful discrimination" and that is precisely what is meant by PC!
Or do you disagree, in which case, I would be glad to address the contents of the memo. Because that is the crux of the matter.
There's no point discussing the memo as long as you keep misconstruing Google's position. You cannot usefully assess the contents of the memo relatively to Google's position until you understand this position.
For now, you haven't shown you do.
So, instead of merely dismissing things as "bald assertions," perhaps we could actually engage in that discussion. Because as far as I can tell, you are the only one making a bald assertion: you are asserting that Google has said that the memo violated the their terms of conduct, and ipso facto, this memo actually amounts to harassment, bias, discrimination.
This is a misrepresentation of what I said.
It's a fact that Google's position is that this guy somehow violated they Code. That is no "bald assertion" on my part. You are just being ridiculous.
Second, as explained above, Google is not claiming harassment, bias, or discrimination. You interpreted in this way the extract of the code I provided but your interpretation is flawed. And I certainly didn't asserted, baldly or not that the memo amounted to harassment, bias or discrimination.
Imagine if a Google manager fired a redhead because they hate redheads. If the manager then stated, "the employee was fired because they violated the code of conduct", then presumably you would ask why, and not just take the claim at face-value, and declare that they have a solid reason, and there is no room for anti-redhead bias in the code of conduct.
But I didn't take Google's claim at face value. You sure have some serious understanding issue, Sir.
My position all along was that I didn't have evidence that Google's position was motivated by PC.
And I asked you to justify your position that it was and so far you've been unable to do that so I will stick to my position for now.
As an aside, the guy was considering a law-suite, but all of what I've read points to that being a fool's errand. Some speculate that the only way he would have a chance is by invoking a California law that prohibits people from being fired for participating in political movements, but that is a long shot.
It's not Google making American law. You get your target wrong.
In any event, the code of conduct is irrelevant: Google is under no obligation to justify that claim, or show that the employee actually violated the code of conduct. Again, the is America, not France.
Oh yes the Google's Code is relevant. Google justified dismissing this guy on the ground that he had violated its Code of Conduct. How could this Code not be relevant to the question of whether Google's posture is or isn't motivated by PC.
What doesn't seem relevant to this question now is California law since apparently there won't be any court to look into the issue.
Ok, I think we can stop here. We don't need to go any further than that. I can see we're not going anywhere and very fast. Your logic is faulty, you manage to get even simple facts of the case wrong, and you grossly and repeatedly misrepresented my position, wilfully or not doesn't matter.
I'm not here to teach you how to read and how to argue properly.
EB
