> But that guy at Google is very much in the minority, as are all of the people causing problems with various -isms.

Can you prove this? I'm curious. I don't entirely disagree, but I sure would love verification.

I think that whole thing about "unconscious bias" is very real, and it's quite fair to rigorously examine our biases and accept constructive criticism of them. There's also a matter of perception lagging behind reality, and reality being difficult to assess because of availability biases.

> But that doesn't stop people from continuing to paint us specifically with too broad a brush,

Deep apologies for going so far on a tangent here, but I'd like to encourage you to step back from these for a moment.

Firstly, don't be that person and allegations aimed at said people don't really apply to you? If you accidentally behave in a way that lines up with these allegations, then
own it, accept the censure, identify what steps you'll take to correct yourself then execute on them.

> I think it's because they have an issue with us personally, and that's probably due to negative stereotypes about "geeks".

I'm sure that there is a bit of this still lingering in the world, but by-and-large the stereotyping about "geeks" has ended. Geeks rule the damn world. Geeks dominate the news cycle. In terms of combating anti-intellectualism? We're winning that handily.

Here's the part where I sorta agree with your previous statement, even if I wouldn't bet the whole farm on it:

One of the reasons that the extreme-conservative-and-extreme-liberal rhetoric is amplifying so much lately is that fact-and-experiment-driven flexibility is actually gaining so much cultural mindshare from more dogmatic methods of thinking. This empirical method is decried by both sides of the aisle as "centrism" or painted as anti-humanist. I don't believe it is, but such is the defense mechanism of those those thoughts. Examine the rhetoric of a "nationalist" or a "monarchist" or even a "communist"; exclusion is baked into their doctrine. It's why these ideas are so tenacious.

As these more dogmatic groups get backed further and further into corners, they seem outsized cultural impact more and more desperately to avoid the perception that they are in decline.

To this end, enduring slings and arrows while focusing on doing the right and fair thing, with an eye towards incremental improvement, is exactly what folks attacking our community hate us doing. Part of the reason they're eager to amplify our failures at self-policing is because they're flustered by the fact that for the most part the valley has calmly agreed that the current situation is in fact illegal and untenable and started taking steps to correct it.

These steps can't happen overnight, nor can they be "one simple thing." We both know that. But dogmatic thought thrives on the notion that if you just listen and do whatever they say (often without any pre-planning at all) then it'll all go away.

Looping this all back around to the topic, it's up to us to figure out how to use the power-disparity we're developing (and that's precisely what a difference is technology is) to make the world a better place. Criticism needs to be in our lives to remind us that we're shaping things that can affect generations and generations to come.