Performative outrage? Constantly triggered? Are we talking about the same company?

Paying someone $90 million to leave after allegedly assaulting someone [0] isn't something that happens "constantly", and seems like a pretty reasonable thing to have strong opinions about. And there's nothing "performative" about successfully rolling back mandatory arbitration [1], which studies have found is stacked in favor of employers and muzzles employees [2], and which the ABA now recommends against [3].

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...

[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/8/18075780/google-sexual-as...

[2]: https://www.vox.com/2018/8/1/16992362/sexual-harassment-mand...

[3]: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/law_practice/publications...

Rubin was accused by, if I recall correctly, a woman he'd been in a relationship with and then dumped? He denied her accusations and as it was all behind closed doors there's no way to ever resolve it. That shouldn't be in the public realm at all, let alone people having strong opinions about it!

Honestly if Google really kicked him out because of an unsubstantiable claim by some woman with an axe to grind, or some private sexual perversions .... after all he did for Google? $90M is probably too little for what they gave him. That's like, less than a year's CEO salary.

> He denied her accusations and as it was all behind closed doors there's no way to ever resolve it. That shouldn't be in the public realm at all, let alone people having strong opinions about it!

That's true of every accusation the Miami Herald published against Jeffrey Epstein as well. Do you believe none of that should be in the public realm, either?

I'm not arguing that you're wrong, I'm just pointing out that if you want to live in a world where such accusations stay out of the public realm, then that means you want to live in a world where Jeffrey Epstein is still raping adolescent girls, and you have to admit that's a price you're willing to pay to protect the accused.

Conversely, I have no problem admitting that if I support such he-said-she-said accusations being publicized and having consequences, then even if Al Franken and Aziz Ansari did nothing wrong whatsoever, the hits to their reputation and earnings opportunity cost that they suffered is a price I'm willing to pay to reduce sexual harassment.

I also don't fully understand what you mean but "shouldn't be in the public realm". If me and some other person are the sole eyewitnesses to something, should I be muzzled from saying what I witnessed in the public realm simply because the other eyewitness disagrees?

The problem is you don't get to pick and choose who your culture affects. If you hire people with those opinions and then tell them they need to watch what they say, other employees get the same message. You may have people who aren't political at all, but they see people being punished for expressing their opinions and decide they too better modify their behavior.