23 ms·

Lest we forget, it isn't only charismatically-challenged unfortunates like Damore who get thrown under a tank for daring to speak 'out of turn' wrt the social j

by psyc 9y ago

Lest we forget, it isn't only charismatically-challenged unfortunates like Damore who get thrown under a tank for daring to speak 'out of turn' wrt the social justice narrative. Just two hours ago, I happened to re-read the various vicious hit pieces written about Paul Graham several years ago, after he had the gall to speak his mind about representation. These are the times. Everywhere I look online, it's men vs. women, black vs. white. To paraphrase Yudkowsky, "Arguments are soldiers, this is war, and it's life or death." This account began as a throwaway. I used to comment with my real name, in the days before the war broke out. In the days when pg used to comment here regularly. The days when, if someone disagreed with you, they'd tell you so, or why you're wrong, or maybe that you're a dumb-dumb. Now, if you don't follow approved talking points in your social media communiqués, you're in real danger of being pilloried, and - as these things go - you're more likely to be attacked by fellow members of the party. I've identified as left-leaning my entire life, but I've never for a moment feared this sort of personal sabotage from a right-leaning person. This is a pursuit of ideological purity at any cost.

rayiner 9y ago
Damore’s screed was also rife with fallacies and unsupported generalizations, let’s not forget that. It drives me nuts that his lack of “charisma” (rather than his lack of logical reasoning skills or writing ability) is what people are saying got him fired. If he’d written a manifesto that sloppy on a technical topic people would’ve ripped him to shreds.
- anon12345690 9y ago
  Screed? It was a simple memo, something that he meant for a few people and had shared internally for months before it became so widely misunderstood. He didn't say anything outright false, only that men and women are different and have different interests, so forcing 50/50 wont be a good outcome. Also, Google even agrees with him: https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/958138574171287552 https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/958138574171287552 "Did I read this right? Susan Wojicicki said that women find “geeky male industries” (as opposed to “social industries”) “not very interesting” and Sundar cites research on gender differences."
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    Nothing outright false, but that was the major problem with it. Just because you aren't obviously wrong and you safecheck yourself with facts doesn't mean you are actually correct in your assessment. He didn't say anything outright false, only that men and women are different and have different interests, so forcing 50/50 wont be a good outcome I agree with OP that this difference in interests is probably socialized. Men and women are very obviously socialized differently, not to mention at many places (tech companies especially), the social atmosphere is one that favors men (boys) with keggers and nerf guns. Damore's memo isn't very convincing from that perspective, because if the difference can be explain by 20 years of socialization, it can also be changed, and Damore's argument seemed to be based upon some inherent difference between the sexes and his solutions predicated on that assumption. Then again, not really sure exactly what he was arguing because it was meandering. It's been argued to death at this point, but it genuinely surprises me that people find his poorly sourced memo (or whatever you want to call it) as the centerpiece for this topic. With that as the starting point, no wonder the discussion is garbage. The people who support viewpoints like Damore's should aim higher because it is not helping their case. To give a more complete answer, here's a section from his memo: De-emphasize empathy. I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. There are multiple claims there. He does refer to a blog post, but reading that, do you have any clue what that blog post may be about or how it applies to his argument?
    - anon12345690 9y ago
      Facts are used as evidence, which he what he did. There's nothing wrong with that. If you have a better explanation then let's hear it but all you said was that you believe it's "probably socialized" based on what exactly? This article explains in great detail how that is not the case in any significance and there are even examples where men and women have been socialized oppositely and still end up choosing typical gender interests. > argument seemed to be based upon some inherent difference between the sexes Yes, men and women are different.
- SuoDuanDao 9y ago
  I've heard this asserted several times, but nobody's said which of his sources they disagree with. Could you link to a source you disagree with and the basis for your disagreement?
  - rayiner 9y ago
    E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15022997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15022997.
    - Pyxl101 9y ago
      That claim in Damore's memo shouldn't be controvertial. Here's what Deborah Soh (PhD in sexual neuroscience) had to say about it: > Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... More from her about Damore's memo and scientific research in this space: > Despite how it's been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour. > As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men. > We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone. > As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it's finished developing in utero. This further suggests that our interests are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manife... EDIT: I wish I understood why I've been downvoted so that I could improve my comments in the future. Is the problem that it's too verbose? OK, I've tried to shorten it and replaced the links to three studies with a link to Deborah's article above.
- dragandj 9y ago
  His logical reasoning skills seemed to be quite all right for Google when he passed their (challenging) hiring process. How the hell he managed to lose that while working there? As for his writing ability, it may not be at the level of Mark Twain, but it seems quite eloquent to me...
  - geodel 9y ago
    All along his mistake is not knowing what not to write in current climate.
- psyc 9y ago
  So it's normal and ok if being wrong got him fired? No matter, as that isn't what got him fired. He was fired because it's good optics in this climate. And I'm asserting the climate isn't good.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    Does suggesting that feminism, the civil rights and the LGBT movement are actually jewish-marxists plots to destroy American capitalism in a memo about diversity you distribute at work count as "being wrong"? I mean it is wrong of course. It doesn't even make sense. Which gender Tim Cook prefers to see naked seems unrelated to running an efficient supply chain for one of the largest corporations on the planet. But generally, I'd say that suggesting that people you work with are actually committing treason by asking for fair treatement under the law should be outside of the political pale. Apparently those days have gone though. He does seem like such a nice, well-spoken young conspiracy theorist though.
    - aaron-lebo 9y ago
      He comes off as a reactionary, for sure. Before someone calls out you for strawmanning, he does go there: Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” His entire memo is a distillation of reactionary talking points. That overall impression rather than any single argument is probably what pissed off a lot of his coworkers because these battles are much older than him.
    - anon12345690 9y ago
      I've never seen anyone interpret any of that. Also has nothing to do with civil rights but was talking about men and women liking different things, so forcing them in equal ratios does more harm than good. What exactly didnt make sense to you with that?
- Pyxl101 9y ago
  > Damore’s screed was also rife with fallacies and unsupported generalizations, let’s not forget that Was it really rife with fallacies? Lee Jussim (professor of social psychology at Rutgers University) wrote: > The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico) wrote: > For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Debra W Soh (PhD in sexual neuroscience): > Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... It doesn't seem reasonable to characterize this memo as rife with fallacies or unsupported generalizations when multiple scientists are willing to go on the record saying the memo's science is generally correct. I have not seen similar in-depth rebuttals from other scientists claiming it's wrong. (If anyone knows of one I'd be glad to read it. I have seen brief quotes from scientists in articles written by reporters, but nothing with depth or analysis.) EDIT: I wish I understood why I've been downvoted so that I could improve my comments in the future. Would anyone be willing to explain the downvote?
  - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
    Fwiw: I think you're being down voted because the citations you mention have all become a part of the controversy rather than being external evidence. Each of the scientists you mentioned above have at times before this controversy shown a willingness to say things specifically to get limelight. In culture war topics, the only real citations that can count are people above reproach, or people who are unknown but experts in their fields, which is a fine needle to thread. Also raw data, but few of us here would be qualified to understand the raw data.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- weberc2 9y ago
  However bad his reasoning was, the position he's criticizing ("disparity, thus oppression") is far less reasonable, and heads don't roll for it. In fact, it's the official view. Besides, one instance of bad reasoning does not merit termination. I really don't see how anyone can honestly bring himself to believe that Damore was fired for anything other than political heresy.
awinder 9y ago
This “war” has been going on for centuries. The difference is that white men were totally dominating it until recent times, and a lot of them really don’t like that they may need to adapt behavior. African Americans had a right side of the street to walk on within the last 2 generations, for risk of being lynched. You better believe they’ve been parsing every word out of their mouths, not for fear of being labeled a mean word, but for fear of being killed, or having their families killed. The “freedom of speech”, or freedom to loudly espouse any idea, has only ever truly existed for some small segment of the population. And it’s never been a problem for any of these squalking idiots. Until now, go figure.
- arkh 9y ago
  > This “war” has been going on for centuries. The difference is that white men were totally dominating it until recent times, and a lot of them really don’t like that they may need to adapt behavior. African Americans had a right side of the street to walk on within the last 2 generations, for risk of being lynched. You better believe they’ve been parsing every word out of their mouths, not for fear of being labeled a mean word, but for fear of being killed, or having their families killed. That's US-centric. Until a century ago the majority of humans did not have a lot of freedom. Living under some autocratic ruler. The skin color or gender was irrelevant: only who you were the child of. A Chinese noblewoman had a lot more freedom than a English farmer.
  - mlevental 9y ago
    what is your point? that in the rest of the world racism wasn't a thing or that racism is actually classicism? both of these things aren't true
    - pgeorgi 9y ago
      > what is your point? Well, "That's US-centric". Racism doesn't even translate well to other countries today: not every country has the situation that a significant part of the population has ancestors that were relocated by force and had to work as slaves in recent history, and are easily distinguishable by skin color ("race"). Different countries, different problems. Hence, different delineations in the various culture wars all over the world.
drewbuschhorn 9y ago
I've seen this sentiment from former fans of left leaning fiction, and I have to ask: are you sure it's not the culture that's stayed the same and you who drifted right?
- js8 9y ago
  > Are you sure it's not the culture that's stayed the same and you who drifted right? As a leftist, yes. I understand to be on the left means to strive for equality of power among people, economic and social. To be on the right means, at best, not to care about power inequalities between people. I cringe every time when other people think that feminists and SJWs (I would prefer to call them by different terms but I don't know any) are leftist. They are only in a certain very narrow sense, which makes them often to be on the right, paradoxically. They often do not care about oppressed white males. But if you do not care about some oppressed group, then you don't stand for equality. Feminism became to be included in the left, because in the past, all women were oppressed. It's no longer the case, and some feminists do not actually care about equality of other groups. Some biologist put it nicely in a discussion: The left (as a broad political movement) might suffer from a predatory problem - being joined by someone who is oppressed, but doesn't actually want equality, only power. But that's the nature of the game. And this conflict is nothing new, either. Noam Chomsky, a giant of the left, has been affected by it in the 70s, when he defended free speech of a Holocaust denier.
  - drewbuschhorn 9y ago
    I'm not sure that actually answers my question (which was admittedly rhetorical), if this has been going on since the 70s, (and longer!), what's changed that it is such a problem to you now as part of the left, while say 10 years ago it didn't bother you? Reply to reply, so I'm out.
- merpnderp 9y ago
  If you look at the actual issues in US culture you’ll see if the left that has drifted further left. As an example you don’t have to go far back to see Nancy Pelosi advocating keeping immigrants out, Hillary taking a moderate stance on abortion or even Obama being to the right of Trump on some social issues like marriage equality. I’m for all of those things but there is zero doubt society has moved left fast.
nova22033 9y ago
>you're in real danger of being pilloried OMG you're so brave. Standing up against means words from anonymous people...on the INTERNET!!!
collyw 9y ago
"charismatically-challenged unfortunates like Damore" Maybe I am on the autistic spectrum, or ots teh fact I studied science but i thought that Damore's memo was fairly well written. First time I went through it he made a couple of points where I though to myself "that sounds controversial", but then in every case he had backed it up with some study validating it to some extent. It was certainly a lot better written than the majority of the media's reporting on it.
- bjl 9y ago
  I mean, he explicitly references anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as his source at multiple points. That alone is enough to completely undermine his credibility, leaving aside the myriad other problems with his memo.
  - marrs 9y ago
    Is this the "anti-semitism" to which you refer? Quote: Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
    - bjl 9y ago
      Yes, parroting debunked anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is anti-Semitic.
      - marrs 9y ago
        So if someone who is anti-semitic believes that Jesus died on the cross at the behest of his Jewish contemporaries, and I also believe the same thing because that's what history has taught me, does that make me anti-semitic? Or is that one ok because it hasn't been debunked? In which case, according to Wikipedia, the Frankfurt school "consisted of neo-Marxist dissidents uncomfortable with existing capitalist, fascist, or communist systems." Has that been debunked? If so, where?
IIAOPSW 9y ago
>I've identified as left-leaning my entire life, but I've never for a moment feared this sort of personal sabotage from a right-leaning person. I tend to attribute this type of thing to what I call the "identity politics" wing of the left. In a Parliamentary system they probably would be in a different party than you.

by psyc 9y ago

rayiner 9y ago

Damore’s screed was also rife with fallacies and unsupported generalizations, let’s not forget that. It drives me nuts that his lack of “charisma” (rather than his lack of logical reasoning skills or writing ability) is what people are saying got him fired. If he’d written a manifesto that sloppy on a technical topic people would’ve ripped him to shreds.

anon12345690 9y ago
Screed? It was a simple memo, something that he meant for a few people and had shared internally for months before it became so widely misunderstood. He didn't say anything outright false, only that men and women are different and have different interests, so forcing 50/50 wont be a good outcome. Also, Google even agrees with him: https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/958138574171287552 https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/958138574171287552 "Did I read this right? Susan Wojicicki said that women find “geeky male industries” (as opposed to “social industries”) “not very interesting” and Sundar cites research on gender differences."
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Nothing outright false, but that was the major problem with it. Just because you aren't obviously wrong and you safecheck yourself with facts doesn't mean you are actually correct in your assessment. He didn't say anything outright false, only that men and women are different and have different interests, so forcing 50/50 wont be a good outcome I agree with OP that this difference in interests is probably socialized. Men and women are very obviously socialized differently, not to mention at many places (tech companies especially), the social atmosphere is one that favors men (boys) with keggers and nerf guns. Damore's memo isn't very convincing from that perspective, because if the difference can be explain by 20 years of socialization, it can also be changed, and Damore's argument seemed to be based upon some inherent difference between the sexes and his solutions predicated on that assumption. Then again, not really sure exactly what he was arguing because it was meandering. It's been argued to death at this point, but it genuinely surprises me that people find his poorly sourced memo (or whatever you want to call it) as the centerpiece for this topic. With that as the starting point, no wonder the discussion is garbage. The people who support viewpoints like Damore's should aim higher because it is not helping their case. To give a more complete answer, here's a section from his memo: De-emphasize empathy. I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts. There are multiple claims there. He does refer to a blog post, but reading that, do you have any clue what that blog post may be about or how it applies to his argument?
  - anon12345690 9y ago
    Facts are used as evidence, which he what he did. There's nothing wrong with that. If you have a better explanation then let's hear it but all you said was that you believe it's "probably socialized" based on what exactly? This article explains in great detail how that is not the case in any significance and there are even examples where men and women have been socialized oppositely and still end up choosing typical gender interests. > argument seemed to be based upon some inherent difference between the sexes Yes, men and women are different.
SuoDuanDao 9y ago
I've heard this asserted several times, but nobody's said which of his sources they disagree with. Could you link to a source you disagree with and the basis for your disagreement?
- rayiner 9y ago
  E.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15022997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15022997.
  - Pyxl101 9y ago
    That claim in Damore's memo shouldn't be controvertial. Here's what Deborah Soh (PhD in sexual neuroscience) had to say about it: > Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... More from her about Damore's memo and scientific research in this space: > Despite how it's been portrayed, the memo was fair and factually accurate. Scientific studies have confirmed sex differences in the brain that lead to differences in our interests and behaviour. > As mentioned in the memo, gendered interests are predicted by exposure to prenatal testosterone – higher levels are associated with a preference for mechanically interesting things and occupations in adulthood. Lower levels are associated with a preference for people-oriented activities and occupations. This is why STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) fields tend to be dominated by men. > We see evidence for this in girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia, who are exposed to unusually high levels of testosterone in the womb. When they are born, these girls prefer male-typical, wheeled toys, such as trucks, even if their parents offer more positive feedback when they play with female-typical toys, such as dolls. Similarly, men who are interested in female-typical activities were likely exposed to lower levels of testosterone. > As well, new research from the field of genetics shows that testosterone alters the programming of neural stem cells, leading to sex differences in the brain even before it's finished developing in utero. This further suggests that our interests are influenced strongly by biology, as opposed to being learned or socially constructed. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manifesto-isnt-sexist-or-anti-diversity-its-science/article35903359/ https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/no-the-google-manife... EDIT: I wish I understood why I've been downvoted so that I could improve my comments in the future. Is the problem that it's too verbose? OK, I've tried to shorten it and replaced the links to three studies with a link to Deborah's article above.
dragandj 9y ago
His logical reasoning skills seemed to be quite all right for Google when he passed their (challenging) hiring process. How the hell he managed to lose that while working there? As for his writing ability, it may not be at the level of Mark Twain, but it seems quite eloquent to me...
- geodel 9y ago
  All along his mistake is not knowing what not to write in current climate.
psyc 9y ago
So it's normal and ok if being wrong got him fired? No matter, as that isn't what got him fired. He was fired because it's good optics in this climate. And I'm asserting the climate isn't good.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  Does suggesting that feminism, the civil rights and the LGBT movement are actually jewish-marxists plots to destroy American capitalism in a memo about diversity you distribute at work count as "being wrong"? I mean it is wrong of course. It doesn't even make sense. Which gender Tim Cook prefers to see naked seems unrelated to running an efficient supply chain for one of the largest corporations on the planet. But generally, I'd say that suggesting that people you work with are actually committing treason by asking for fair treatement under the law should be outside of the political pale. Apparently those days have gone though. He does seem like such a nice, well-spoken young conspiracy theorist though.
  - aaron-lebo 9y ago
    He comes off as a reactionary, for sure. Before someone calls out you for strawmanning, he does go there: Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” His entire memo is a distillation of reactionary talking points. That overall impression rather than any single argument is probably what pissed off a lot of his coworkers because these battles are much older than him.
  - anon12345690 9y ago
    I've never seen anyone interpret any of that. Also has nothing to do with civil rights but was talking about men and women liking different things, so forcing them in equal ratios does more harm than good. What exactly didnt make sense to you with that?
Pyxl101 9y ago
> Damore’s screed was also rife with fallacies and unsupported generalizations, let’s not forget that Was it really rife with fallacies? Lee Jussim (professor of social psychology at Rutgers University) wrote: > The author of the Google essay on issues related to diversity gets nearly all of the science and its implications exactly right. Geoffrey Miller (evolutionary psychology professor at University of New Mexico) wrote: > For what it’s worth, I think that almost all of the Google memo’s empirical claims are scientifically accurate. Debra W Soh (PhD in sexual neuroscience): > Within the field of neuroscience, sex differences between women and men—when it comes to brain structure and function and associated differences in personality and occupational preferences—are understood to be true, because the evidence for them (thousands of studies) is strong. This is not information that’s considered controversial or up for debate; if you tried to argue otherwise, or for purely social influences, you’d be laughed at. http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... It doesn't seem reasonable to characterize this memo as rife with fallacies or unsupported generalizations when multiple scientists are willing to go on the record saying the memo's science is generally correct. I have not seen similar in-depth rebuttals from other scientists claiming it's wrong. (If anyone knows of one I'd be glad to read it. I have seen brief quotes from scientists in articles written by reporters, but nothing with depth or analysis.) EDIT: I wish I understood why I've been downvoted so that I could improve my comments in the future. Would anyone be willing to explain the downvote?
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  Fwiw: I think you're being down voted because the citations you mention have all become a part of the controversy rather than being external evidence. Each of the scientists you mentioned above have at times before this controversy shown a willingness to say things specifically to get limelight. In culture war topics, the only real citations that can count are people above reproach, or people who are unknown but experts in their fields, which is a fine needle to thread. Also raw data, but few of us here would be qualified to understand the raw data.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
weberc2 9y ago
However bad his reasoning was, the position he's criticizing ("disparity, thus oppression") is far less reasonable, and heads don't roll for it. In fact, it's the official view. Besides, one instance of bad reasoning does not merit termination. I really don't see how anyone can honestly bring himself to believe that Damore was fired for anything other than political heresy.

awinder 9y ago

This “war” has been going on for centuries. The difference is that white men were totally dominating it until recent times, and a lot of them really don’t like that they may need to adapt behavior. African Americans had a right side of the street to walk on within the last 2 generations, for risk of being lynched. You better believe they’ve been parsing every word out of their mouths, not for fear of being labeled a mean word, but for fear of being killed, or having their families killed. The “freedom of speech”, or freedom to loudly espouse any idea, has only ever truly existed for some small segment of the population. And it’s never been a problem for any of these squalking idiots. Until now, go figure.

arkh 9y ago
> This “war” has been going on for centuries. The difference is that white men were totally dominating it until recent times, and a lot of them really don’t like that they may need to adapt behavior. African Americans had a right side of the street to walk on within the last 2 generations, for risk of being lynched. You better believe they’ve been parsing every word out of their mouths, not for fear of being labeled a mean word, but for fear of being killed, or having their families killed. That's US-centric. Until a century ago the majority of humans did not have a lot of freedom. Living under some autocratic ruler. The skin color or gender was irrelevant: only who you were the child of. A Chinese noblewoman had a lot more freedom than a English farmer.
- mlevental 9y ago
  what is your point? that in the rest of the world racism wasn't a thing or that racism is actually classicism? both of these things aren't true
  - pgeorgi 9y ago
    > what is your point? Well, "That's US-centric". Racism doesn't even translate well to other countries today: not every country has the situation that a significant part of the population has ancestors that were relocated by force and had to work as slaves in recent history, and are easily distinguishable by skin color ("race"). Different countries, different problems. Hence, different delineations in the various culture wars all over the world.

drewbuschhorn 9y ago

I've seen this sentiment from former fans of left leaning fiction, and I have to ask: are you sure it's not the culture that's stayed the same and you who drifted right?

js8 9y ago
> Are you sure it's not the culture that's stayed the same and you who drifted right? As a leftist, yes. I understand to be on the left means to strive for equality of power among people, economic and social. To be on the right means, at best, not to care about power inequalities between people. I cringe every time when other people think that feminists and SJWs (I would prefer to call them by different terms but I don't know any) are leftist. They are only in a certain very narrow sense, which makes them often to be on the right, paradoxically. They often do not care about oppressed white males. But if you do not care about some oppressed group, then you don't stand for equality. Feminism became to be included in the left, because in the past, all women were oppressed. It's no longer the case, and some feminists do not actually care about equality of other groups. Some biologist put it nicely in a discussion: The left (as a broad political movement) might suffer from a predatory problem - being joined by someone who is oppressed, but doesn't actually want equality, only power. But that's the nature of the game. And this conflict is nothing new, either. Noam Chomsky, a giant of the left, has been affected by it in the 70s, when he defended free speech of a Holocaust denier.
- drewbuschhorn 9y ago
  I'm not sure that actually answers my question (which was admittedly rhetorical), if this has been going on since the 70s, (and longer!), what's changed that it is such a problem to you now as part of the left, while say 10 years ago it didn't bother you? Reply to reply, so I'm out.
merpnderp 9y ago
If you look at the actual issues in US culture you’ll see if the left that has drifted further left. As an example you don’t have to go far back to see Nancy Pelosi advocating keeping immigrants out, Hillary taking a moderate stance on abortion or even Obama being to the right of Trump on some social issues like marriage equality. I’m for all of those things but there is zero doubt society has moved left fast.

nova22033 9y ago

>you're in real danger of being pilloried OMG you're so brave. Standing up against means words from anonymous people...on the INTERNET!!!

collyw 9y ago

"charismatically-challenged unfortunates like Damore" Maybe I am on the autistic spectrum, or ots teh fact I studied science but i thought that Damore's memo was fairly well written. First time I went through it he made a couple of points where I though to myself "that sounds controversial", but then in every case he had backed it up with some study validating it to some extent. It was certainly a lot better written than the majority of the media's reporting on it.

bjl 9y ago
I mean, he explicitly references anti-Semitic conspiracy theories as his source at multiple points. That alone is enough to completely undermine his credibility, leaving aside the myriad other problems with his memo.
- marrs 9y ago
  Is this the "anti-semitism" to which you refer? Quote: Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
  - bjl 9y ago
    Yes, parroting debunked anti-Semitic conspiracy theories is anti-Semitic.
    - marrs 9y ago
      So if someone who is anti-semitic believes that Jesus died on the cross at the behest of his Jewish contemporaries, and I also believe the same thing because that's what history has taught me, does that make me anti-semitic? Or is that one ok because it hasn't been debunked? In which case, according to Wikipedia, the Frankfurt school "consisted of neo-Marxist dissidents uncomfortable with existing capitalist, fascist, or communist systems." Has that been debunked? If so, where?

IIAOPSW 9y ago

>I've identified as left-leaning my entire life, but I've never for a moment feared this sort of personal sabotage from a right-leaning person. I tend to attribute this type of thing to what I call the "identity politics" wing of the left. In a Parliamentary system they probably would be in a different party than you.