5 ms·

It's amazing that even years later people are still mischaracterizing his argument in the exact same way.

muglug 6y ago
Not really. Right after the (somewhat-carefully-worded) memo was punished, the author showed his hand by appearing as a guest on the YouTube show of Stefan Molyneux who, even then, was well-known for his white nationalism and "men's rights" activism.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  I actually watched that interview and he just said the same thing he said in the memo. Damore went on a lot of alternative media platforms such as Joe Rogan. In any case your underlying argument is really bizarre.
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    They're referring to James Damore being alt-right. Kind of like how he soon after sued Google for discrimination for being "white male conservative" (which has not aged well).
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      Insofar as alt-right is a synonym for neo-Nazi that would certainly be a laughably ridiculous claim.
      - three_seagrass 6y ago
        That's why 'alt right' wasn't being used as a synonym for Neo-Nazis - that's your own straw man to laugh at.
        googthrowaway42 6y ago
        Alt-right used to mean alternative-to-Boomer-conservative (i.e. right-leaning 4chan/meme culture) and then it meant neo-Nazi (e.g. Richard Spencer). What does it mean to you?
        three_seagrass 6y ago
        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right By suing Google for discrimination against white conservative men, Damore fits this fairly well. That, and the alt-right podcasts he went on.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    "Guilty by association". That's the argument.
  - muglug 6y ago
    If I wrote a long memo about how there are too many immigrants in America, and afterwards accepted an interview request from VDare, people would be right to wonder whether my private views were a little more racist than the memo let on.
    - sjwright 6y ago
      It's racist to assume that someone is an immigrant because of their appearance. It's not racist to say that you think rates of immigration are too high. You can oppose immigration but have nothing but delight for the diversity of culture across the planet. A xenophilic restrictionist, as Eric Weinstein describes it. In fact extreme xenophilic restrictionism is the norm in Japan. There's almost universal support by the Japanese people for their extremely restrictive immigration policy—probably the most restrictive first world country. But no sane person could call the Japanese people racist. They love other cultures—no, they adore them. They are incredibly welcoming to tourists from across the planet and delight in the sharing of culture.
      - dependenttypes 6y ago
        > But no sane person could call the Japanese people racist I would disagree with that. You will see many sane people pointing out the racism against koreans, chinese, tourists, western residents, etc in Japan.
      - claudiawerner 6y ago
        >There's almost universal support by the Japanese people for their extremely restrictive immigration policy Can you point to some statistics on that, please? >probably the most restrictive first world country If you can get hired by a Japanese company (and some do accept applications from overseas), they will sponsor your work visa. There's none of this H1-B style nonsense. After you're in Japan, if you've been there continuously for five years (which, mind you, is a smaller period of time than any country I can name OTOH), you can apply for citizenship, and again as far as I know, it's not a ridiculous waiting list/lottery style process. In what way is this nearly as restrictve as you're saying? It's also not difficult at all to get into Japan by applying to an English teaching company (eikaiwa or ALT jobs) from overseas (where they recruit from), and all you need is any Bachelor's degree. You'll have a valid work visa and you can be shipped out within months. Try doing the same as a Japanese teacher applying to teach in the US (or many other countries, for that matter). Browse tech job listings for Japanese companies on major job boards in the West. Almost all of them note that they'll be happy to sponsor your work visa. This game of prettying up the language to make it seem nice and friendly, while maintaining the otherness that daily affects people (groups which the other reply to you here has pointed out) with language like "xenophilic restrictionist" does nobody favours. And if there is support for such policies, and in particular bent on nihonjinron notions and race perceptions, I must be insane, but I'm going to go ahead and call "the Japanese people" racist. Being "incredibly welcoming to tourists" doesn't mean anything if you want to work and live there. It misses the whole point of the discussion, and waves away systemic issues with a gloss of "they're good to tourists". We're not talking about tourists. I don't care how much they are able to enjoy Western comedians. I care how receptive they are to people integrating and living in their society like everyone else, as the Japanese constitution guarantees should be possible. At the risk of stirring the pot a little (and only because I couldn't think of a better analogy), you may as well say no country has race problems, because after all, members of the majority race might frequently listen to music by, and watch films featuring, the minority race. That doesn't mean anything in terms of how the minority race is treated, and it's a farcically ignorant point to make. So sorry if I see the same sort of logic in nebulous feelgood terms like "xenophilic restrictionism".
gumby 6y ago
I know many people comment on any topic second hand, but I read what he wrote and I’m quite familiar with the meaning. It’s the same as when people protest building housing: “oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood”. I know what they are really talking about, and I know full well what he was talking about — he was making the same argument, in the same terms, as plenty have before him. I assume he read those arguments before, himself.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  I don't think anyone alive would have the time to read all the arguments that are predicated on or further the idea that men and woman, broadly speaking, have different natures. That kind of a fundamental distinction that all of Western civilization is built on. It's legitimate to try to explore and understand to what extent those differing natures may play a role in the various levels of representation we see for men and women in various industries.
- DuskStar 6y ago
  Is it possible to make an argument to those ends without being accused of being a racist/sexist/etc in your mind? Is there any way that someone could convince you that they were sincere? > oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood Is there no situation where this is obviously, trivially true? If someone wants to replace a traditional cottage in the middle of an Irish village with a glass and steel modernist masterpiece, would you accept the argument then?
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    I think to some degree what is being argued is that a genuinely sincere concern along this line relies on assumptions perpetuate social inequality and continued oppression of humans. It is similar to a constant suspicion of men around children perpetuates continued discomfort of men to be strong, loving, present father figures to their children whom they genuinely care for, and from this a concern based on assumptions harms the family structure overall.
    - 6y ago
three_seagrass 6y ago
What's amazing is that people, to this day, take a personal weakly-worded memo as scientific fact.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  I don't think anyone really considers the memo itself to be a scientific fact. The scientific papers cited and arguments contained therein people might take as scientific facts.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - three_seagrass 6y ago
    Considering 'the arguments therin' to be scientific is considering the memo to be scientific, which it's not. When they're not conservative opinion pieces, they're cherry picked articles, even going to far as to misrepresent the data they support.
    - thu2111 6y ago
      It was a pretty scientific memo. It cited a lot of scientific research. The sort of people who argue against his memo always end up looking foolish because they never argue against anything that was actually said. No specific claims are ever brought up except lying strawmen like "he said women can't program", a claim not found in the memo. Instead it's all just slurs, insults, attacks on his character, guilt-by-association and so on. There's never any actual depth to it, it's all "don't look at the bad man". Damore's arguments must be good, because in years of this coming up nobody has ever once managed to make an intellectual argument against the stuff in his memo.

Not really. Right after the (somewhat-carefully-worded) memo was punished, the author showed his hand by appearing as a guest on the YouTube show of Stefan Molyneux who, even then, was well-known for his white nationalism and "men's rights" activism.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
I actually watched that interview and he just said the same thing he said in the memo. Damore went on a lot of alternative media platforms such as Joe Rogan. In any case your underlying argument is really bizarre.
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  They're referring to James Damore being alt-right. Kind of like how he soon after sued Google for discrimination for being "white male conservative" (which has not aged well).
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    Insofar as alt-right is a synonym for neo-Nazi that would certainly be a laughably ridiculous claim.
    - three_seagrass 6y ago
      That's why 'alt right' wasn't being used as a synonym for Neo-Nazis - that's your own straw man to laugh at.
      - googthrowaway42 6y ago
        Alt-right used to mean alternative-to-Boomer-conservative (i.e. right-leaning 4chan/meme culture) and then it meant neo-Nazi (e.g. Richard Spencer). What does it mean to you?
        three_seagrass 6y ago
        https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Alt-right By suing Google for discrimination against white conservative men, Damore fits this fairly well. That, and the alt-right podcasts he went on.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  "Guilty by association". That's the argument.
- muglug 6y ago
  If I wrote a long memo about how there are too many immigrants in America, and afterwards accepted an interview request from VDare, people would be right to wonder whether my private views were a little more racist than the memo let on.
  - sjwright 6y ago
    It's racist to assume that someone is an immigrant because of their appearance. It's not racist to say that you think rates of immigration are too high. You can oppose immigration but have nothing but delight for the diversity of culture across the planet. A xenophilic restrictionist, as Eric Weinstein describes it. In fact extreme xenophilic restrictionism is the norm in Japan. There's almost universal support by the Japanese people for their extremely restrictive immigration policy—probably the most restrictive first world country. But no sane person could call the Japanese people racist. They love other cultures—no, they adore them. They are incredibly welcoming to tourists from across the planet and delight in the sharing of culture.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > But no sane person could call the Japanese people racist I would disagree with that. You will see many sane people pointing out the racism against koreans, chinese, tourists, western residents, etc in Japan.
    - claudiawerner 6y ago
      >There's almost universal support by the Japanese people for their extremely restrictive immigration policy Can you point to some statistics on that, please? >probably the most restrictive first world country If you can get hired by a Japanese company (and some do accept applications from overseas), they will sponsor your work visa. There's none of this H1-B style nonsense. After you're in Japan, if you've been there continuously for five years (which, mind you, is a smaller period of time than any country I can name OTOH), you can apply for citizenship, and again as far as I know, it's not a ridiculous waiting list/lottery style process. In what way is this nearly as restrictve as you're saying? It's also not difficult at all to get into Japan by applying to an English teaching company (eikaiwa or ALT jobs) from overseas (where they recruit from), and all you need is any Bachelor's degree. You'll have a valid work visa and you can be shipped out within months. Try doing the same as a Japanese teacher applying to teach in the US (or many other countries, for that matter). Browse tech job listings for Japanese companies on major job boards in the West. Almost all of them note that they'll be happy to sponsor your work visa. This game of prettying up the language to make it seem nice and friendly, while maintaining the otherness that daily affects people (groups which the other reply to you here has pointed out) with language like "xenophilic restrictionist" does nobody favours. And if there is support for such policies, and in particular bent on nihonjinron notions and race perceptions, I must be insane, but I'm going to go ahead and call "the Japanese people" racist. Being "incredibly welcoming to tourists" doesn't mean anything if you want to work and live there. It misses the whole point of the discussion, and waves away systemic issues with a gloss of "they're good to tourists". We're not talking about tourists. I don't care how much they are able to enjoy Western comedians. I care how receptive they are to people integrating and living in their society like everyone else, as the Japanese constitution guarantees should be possible. At the risk of stirring the pot a little (and only because I couldn't think of a better analogy), you may as well say no country has race problems, because after all, members of the majority race might frequently listen to music by, and watch films featuring, the minority race. That doesn't mean anything in terms of how the minority race is treated, and it's a farcically ignorant point to make. So sorry if I see the same sort of logic in nebulous feelgood terms like "xenophilic restrictionism".

gumby 6y ago

I know many people comment on any topic second hand, but I read what he wrote and I’m quite familiar with the meaning. It’s the same as when people protest building housing: “oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood”. I know what they are really talking about, and I know full well what he was talking about — he was making the same argument, in the same terms, as plenty have before him. I assume he read those arguments before, himself.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
I don't think anyone alive would have the time to read all the arguments that are predicated on or further the idea that men and woman, broadly speaking, have different natures. That kind of a fundamental distinction that all of Western civilization is built on. It's legitimate to try to explore and understand to what extent those differing natures may play a role in the various levels of representation we see for men and women in various industries.
DuskStar 6y ago
Is it possible to make an argument to those ends without being accused of being a racist/sexist/etc in your mind? Is there any way that someone could convince you that they were sincere? > oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood Is there no situation where this is obviously, trivially true? If someone wants to replace a traditional cottage in the middle of an Irish village with a glass and steel modernist masterpiece, would you accept the argument then?
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  I think to some degree what is being argued is that a genuinely sincere concern along this line relies on assumptions perpetuate social inequality and continued oppression of humans. It is similar to a constant suspicion of men around children perpetuates continued discomfort of men to be strong, loving, present father figures to their children whom they genuinely care for, and from this a concern based on assumptions harms the family structure overall.
  - 6y ago

three_seagrass 6y ago

What's amazing is that people, to this day, take a personal weakly-worded memo as scientific fact.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
I don't think anyone really considers the memo itself to be a scientific fact. The scientific papers cited and arguments contained therein people might take as scientific facts.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- three_seagrass 6y ago
  Considering 'the arguments therin' to be scientific is considering the memo to be scientific, which it's not. When they're not conservative opinion pieces, they're cherry picked articles, even going to far as to misrepresent the data they support.
  - thu2111 6y ago
    It was a pretty scientific memo. It cited a lot of scientific research. The sort of people who argue against his memo always end up looking foolish because they never argue against anything that was actually said. No specific claims are ever brought up except lying strawmen like "he said women can't program", a claim not found in the memo. Instead it's all just slurs, insults, attacks on his character, guilt-by-association and so on. There's never any actual depth to it, it's all "don't look at the bad man". Damore's arguments must be good, because in years of this coming up nobody has ever once managed to make an intellectual argument against the stuff in his memo.