I'm not a fan of his talk, but I wanna be honest about its contents. That's the kernels of coherency we can extract from his slides (found here: https://drive

I'm not a fan of his talk, but I wanna be honest about its contents. That's the kernels of coherency we can extract from his slides (found here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA91Kefj/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c_NyUhOZ8erdqU2AGZJZtNfFeA9...). In reality he literally argues "conservative theory vs cultural marxism." He reuses Damore's claim of "preferences" with a cite to a humanities paper from the 1800s (talk about a replication crisis), and uses this newish claim of σ=1.15 on an IQ distribution which is not faring well in peer review. He does specifically try to argue that women are cited equally when they are listed contributors. This argument is of course plagued by historical evidence he doesn't really care to refute, let alone address.