Alt-right Twitter seems to believe that murders were only committed by Hillary Clinton's death squads, and that random violence in America's big cities doesn't exist (until two seconds later when apparently people are so terrified of violence in America's big cities that we need all sorts of invasions on civil liberties so people can walk outside ever).
The national debt is a good thing, and if you oppose it for the reasons alt-right Twitter does (it has the name "debt" in it, and debt is bad, right?), that's a sign of a pretty flawed world-view.
Alt-right Twitter thinks sexual assault is so immoral that cultures that are successfully calling it out and reforming are bad cultures, and cultures that are ignoring it and electing people who deny credible claims are good cultures. It just so happens that the first group of cultures are left-leaning and the second are right-leaning - what a coincidence!
If those are your three examples, I am absolutely happy to define myself by disagreement with all of them.
No, I'm dead serious, the alt right is not literally reptilians, they hold the vast majority of common moral opinions. The body of things that you and they could agree on is enormous, you can't dismiss somebody simply because the alt-right doesn't disagree with them.
> These guys elected the sexual-assaulter-in-chief.
So did I, and millions of others. The alt-right is a supreme minority in the United States, they do not have the numbers to elect the President, this is hysterical.
EDIT - Ah, Trump supporter, that explains it.
Explain how this is James' fault.
> When alt-right Twitter agrees with your world-views, you're doing something WRONG.
Alt-right Twitter agrees that murder is wrong, the national debt is concerning, and that sexual assault is supremely immoral. What does that make you, if you define yourself by disagreement with them? It is not James Damore's job to disavow all the people you disagree with on other matters, no matter how legitimate your disagreement.