It's like the people on the right saying Edward Snowden is obviously a traitor/spy because he went to Russia. Uhhh... something very obvious is being ignored there.

Also, come on ... Joe Rogan is definitely not right-wing. Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin do not self-identify as right-wing. And your [1] just seems a little extreme. "The far right is just a slip away from the reasonable right, therefore the reasonable right is dangerous?" But you don't apply that same idea to the left? Why not?

The real pattern here is that he went to the shows that would have him as a guest for reasonable discussion.

Adding to this; we should bear in mind that while nobody specific speaks for "the left"'s moral judgments, at least some people literally won't allow him to speak.

Secondly, he was never trying to be a martyr and we shouldn't expect him to be one. He was posting a controversial opinion on a message board marked for controversial opinion. He was clearly putting in a solid attempt to be objective and to employ facts and evidence. He has some academic exposure to the fields he was talking about.

He didn't expect to be targeted the way he was; he likely wasn't trying to set himself up as a hero of free speech; and he doesn't have to do a walk of shame through hostile talk shows to justify his intentions if he doesn't feel like taking the (unjustified) heat.

I don't know what he expected, but that was stupid.

Damore himself said he wanted to go on friendly media to do interviews, not that other media wouldn't have him.

I'm pretty sure this is textbook slippery slope fallacy

Why also nobody is going to hire him.

To my knowledge, Damore has not been accused of any crime.

> was "creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities",

No, only an employer can do that. Damore might have engaged in actions in the workplace that, in context, made it an unacceptable risk that by continuing to employ him Google would risk creating a hostile work environment for women and/or other protected classes.

> He was fired for challenging (an anti-white, anti-male, anti-conservative) political orthodoxy, and that's illegal in California.

Advocating change to corporate, rather than public, policy does not seem to be even remotely “political activity”, which is what California law actually protects, not that the California law would be valid if and to the extent it required corporations to undertake actions prohibited by federal law.

It's a figure of speech; I wasn't referring to a legal crime.

> No, only an employer can do that. Damore might have engaged in actions in the workplace that, in context, made it an unacceptable risk that by continuing to employ him Google would risk creating a hostile work environment for women and/or other protected classes.

I agree. I'm just trying to make sense of the parent's claim that Damore's behavior constitutes a "hostile work environment".

> Advocating change to corporate, rather than public, policy does not seem to be even remotely “political activity”, which is what California law actually protects.

My argument is that Google made inferences about his public policy beliefs based on his "memo", and fired him for those inferences. In other words, they inferred that he was conservative, and fired him because they felt his conservatism was too much a threat. Whether or not his speech is protected under California law is up to the courts.

Never mind that firing someone for innocuous (if misguided) corporate policy improvements is still morally indefensible.

Well, it's your assertion. I don't see an argument supporting it.

EDIT: Removed snarkiness.

I corrected my previous comment.

I also listened to the James Damore episode, and while I thought James did a good job of making his point and Joe did an AWESOME job of interviewing him while not taking sides, it felt like James was pretty disingenuous and lacked a general understanding of how to behave in a workplace as well as how to treat other people.

Pretty much all of the mainstream “right” and “left” in America are takes on classical liberalism, with different ideas about concrete context applies. The far-right and far-left (including the alt-right as part of the far-right, for this purpose) aren't.

These are the things that I came away with after watching it, to the best of my recollection: - Cenks inability to be charitable towards his guest - Cenks inability to let his guest make a point without challenging it repeatedly, and please note the that the word "repeatedly" is key - Cenks way of deflecting analysis of an apple by saying "but what about this orange?!" - Sams amazing patience and calm

Anyway, that's how I remember feeling after having watched it years ago. And I've never watched Cenk before or after that interview, so I have no other points of reference for his character or abilities as an interviewer.

I'm not going to go watch it again, so there's nothing to discuss here - it just amazes me that anyone would want to be interviewed by Cenk, considering how negatively I viewed his interaction with Sam.

So, I guess I should not have engaged you at all, because I have nothing to discuss, and no factual arguments to make.

I would delete my first comment if I could, but I can't.

and actually yes, do some prep work and go on a show that will be hostile. Not crazy, but potentially hostile. Someone who will reject the ideas and force you to defend and/or clarify them.

Classical liberal just seems like yet another rebranding by people who don't want to just call themselves conservatives. I've yet to hear a "classical liberal" who doesn't seem like yet another libertarian/conservative.

Anyway, what's the definition of classical liberal, conservative? It's a mishmash of random "single issues" thrown together.

The definition changes as it's convenient for the optimization game of politics, as parties, groups, power structures try to maintain their relevance, try to get more voters, more support, more donations, more allies, and so on.

No internal consistency, no moral foundations, no logic, no principles.

I said that he was a bit disingenous about some thing and then said that he "lacked understanding about...", yet, sure, cut that off, rip out the context in the interest of being snarky to a complete stranger. Why not?

I mean, if you want to debate, I'm happy to do so, but I'd prefer the debate be rooted in reality and not hyperbole.

On net, do you think Rogan's political commentary favors the status quo or a more equal society?

Imagine you think fire trucks are an eyesore, so you start an advocacy campaign trying to ban them from the road. Someone might accuse you of not caring if people's houses burn down.

You might reply that deep in your heart you are 100% against houses burning down and you're just weighing in on the way fires should be fought.

And maybe you're being honest that in your heart of hearts you don't want houses to burn down. But that's only relevant to you. From everyone else's perspective, your politics are pro-houses-burning-down.

Your entire first post.

1) He doesnt "spend a lot of time railing on SJWs".

2) He absolutely talks, with almost every single guest, about how to potentially change the world for the better.

3) I never indicated that I thought he wasn't right wing because of how he felt about legal pot, yet, you throw that in there anyway, i guess to belittle an argument I never made? Fun...

So yeah, two sentences and every single point is either incorrect or not useful. That's not exactly how one starts a useful debate.

Also wow that is an atrocious analogy.

You make really bad claim that has 3 parts and all 3 parts are either made up, exaggerated or irrelevant.

I explain, part by part, how these things are made up, exaggerated and irrelevant, and at the end of my post, marvel at how poor your followup analogy is.

Your takeaway? "Who gives a shit about that point by point argument he just made to me? I'm going to totally ignore that! The one interaction we've ever had, where he made point by point critiques of my argument, has shown me that he "sure does like to make strong claims without offering even a shred of argumentation.""...?

I'm curious how a human brain is capable of producing that kind of logic? It is just simply a case that you're lashing out because you're embarrassed your initial point was made to look so bad? I'm not getting what's happening here.

You seem to disagree with either the premise or the conclusion, but rather than making an argument to that effect you have made 3 (three!) meta-posts about it, all while waxing on about the virtues effective debate.

Maybe you disagree with my premise, or maybe you disagree with my conclusion, but your posts so far amount to a whole lot of grandstanding and a vanishingly small amount of argumentation. Your insistence on talking about me and your meta-view of my argument rather than the argument itself reveals a lot more about you than it does about me.

I still stand by the argument (both premise and conclusions) I made in my original post. I wish our conversation could have been about that, as I think it would have been much more interesting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm not banning you just this minute because your comment history doesn't show that you've been using HN primarily for this sort of battle, and that's the test we apply. But if you keep breaking the rules, we definitely will.

It's funny how even in a highly logical technical community the conversations on certain topics are the same as you'd find elsewhere.

Please explain where he was "lashing out" and who those "certain groups of his coworkers" were. Try to be specific.

before someone says "He didn't do that, you obviously never read it", I did and I still believe it's a conclusion that he leads the reader to. Not sure it was intentional.

Also the whole "too neurotic for leadership" bit. WTF was he thinking with that.

I have never bought into this is some social political thing but rather just basic human decency. Never understood how the right wing got a hold of this and my only guess it was Damore or someone from the right wing that wanted this rather obvious HR issue as some social political issue. It is not in reality. Any company would have diciplined Damore including firing. A manager is responsible for everyone including the women.

Why on Earth do you think a former Google engineer is sitting at home unemployed? You would never want him on a team that had to get something done.

There is so many reasons to fire him and it is California so Google did not even need a reason.

But the more interesting thing is how did the become a right wing thing? Who was able to pull that off and use this as something to gen up the right wing? Is it not a bit manipulative of the right wingers? Do they not see it?

Because he's busy - see the title of this post.

Have you watched any of his right wing outlet interviews? Literally on every interview he mentions "Nobody from left reached out to me, only the right wing outlets reached out to me". I'd definitely recommend watching his Dave Rubin interview (even though you think he is a right winger).

If you were him, you'd rather go out and present your side, than to be portrayed in whichever smear light the media wants to portray you.

There are people who lost the narrative from both left and right (like Milo) and that is definitely worse than losing the support for only one side.

Also, hypothetically it sounds great that you show up to both sides on a divided issue like this, but that isn't possible anymore in the polarized society we live in (a great example of this is you classifying Dave Rubin as 'right wing', just see how many people are calling you out on it).

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/02/26/jo...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mmlmxamw_k

You should listen to his episode with Neil DeGrasse Tyson, they talk about the mindset of denialism quite a bit.

Of the ones that did, it was heavily edited to present a certain bad narrative of him.

I read the memo. If one is familiar with the research and evolutionary biology, there is nothing in there to react that strongly against, unless one takes a biased, insincere reading of what he actually wrote.

him immediately going to right wing YouTubers like

Those were the only people who would talk to him without trying to make it a hit piece, same as Bret Weinstein.

Stefan Molyneux,

Not sure what Mr. Molyneux is, but given his Libertarian bent, he really doesn't fall in with the mainstream North American right. I'm really skeezed out by his past calls to his audience for "de-fooing" which reads like a cult leader asking his followers to isolate themselves from society and listen only to him.

Jordan Peterson

Terms himself a classical liberal, but also terms himself a conservative, which isn't contradictory. He's been kinda "adopted" by a northern Native American tribe. People who try to paint him as "Alt-Right" aren't actually listening to what he's saying, and are effectively in an evidence-free cloudcuckooland. (He isn't anti-trans. Rather, he's against some nefarious anti-science and compelled speech tactics employed by activists who claim to speak for all trans people. He has received numerous letters from trans people in support of his message.) I have yet to see genuine criticism of him which stands up to scrutiny.

Mike cernovich

Don't like this guy, or his politics. Why do you lump this guy and Molyneux in with people like Jordan Peterson? Doesn't make any sense to me, except as a poison pill.

Joe Rogan

Would have passed perfectly fine as a liberal in the 90's. I think the far left doesn't like him simply because he won't play along with their politics. I find him refreshingly honest and highly intelligent. (Yes, he was a moon hoaxer at one point, but unlike a lot of stupid people, he had the wherewithal to listen to arguments and change his mind.)

Dave Rubin

Terms himself a liberal, also a "classical liberal." He's made a turn towards Libertarianism. He strikes me as sincere in wanting to give everyone a chance to be heard. I think he has intellectual integrity, and as such, he's willing to change his mind. His sincerity and intellectual integrity are the best things he has going for him, though I judge him to be just at a layperson's level intellectually.

Steven Crowder

I don't think Mr. Crowder is as funny or as smart as he thinks. I think he falls down a bit in terms of his intellectual honesty and in his scholarship. (Or course, he uses the "comedian" card to get out of that.) I think his effort to expose Antifa was creditable, but I wish he did a better job of having substance. All of these topical comedians are 10X funnier when they have substance. Colbert used to be funny, and it's because he had that.

etc. is suspicious. [1]

Given that you grouped all these people together, I find your list very suspicious.

I don't believe Peterson is alt-right, but I do think there's a fair case for dismissing him as a source for anything but his specific field of clinical psychology. His sudden rise to the position of "public intellectual” (on the back of his alarmist and widely disputed take on Bill C-16 [1]) is troubling when his unwavering single-minded crusade against what he considers a global cabal of “postmodern neo-Marxists” colours nearly every view he has [2][3].

Examples of this can be seen in his bold proclamations against feminists, Disney films, the concept of white privilege, but also in his occasional habit of linking to junk-science blogs to inform his position rather than peer-reviewed research (such as when he propagated the debunked[4] claim that contrary to what nearly every climatologist, atmospheric physicist, geologist, glaciologist and oceanographer has been telling us, Earth's climate sensitivity is actually trending towards zero [5]).

He’s also demonstrably not one to allow gaps in his knowledge to get in the way of proudly displaying his confirmation biases [6][7].

So as a trained clinical psychologist, I’m sure he knows what he’s talking about when he stays in his own lane, but for an academic and supposed advocate for scientific rigour he seems remarkably lax in applying the same care and scrutiny to his positions on social issues.

1. http://sds.utoronto.ca/blog/bill-c-16-no-its-not-about-crimi...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marx...

3. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/79568716336716185...

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFDnxMp0Hw8

5. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/92041514135884595...

6. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/95073630669433651...

7. https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/95077370882567372...

He is if anything fairly moderate with a slight libertarian streak, especially when it comes to drugs.

I don't agree with lots of his positions and he's definitely not some really smart guru, but I like that he's an average guy with an open mind who lets speakers of all viewpoints express themselves in a very welcoming way. I mean hosting Jordan Peterson and Brett Weinstein, both on the 2 ends of the political spectrum and making it a very intellectually stimulating dialogue is a breath of fresh air in today's gotcha media. You know CNN and fox have an agenda when they bring opposing viewpoints on their show, trying to invalidate their ideas. In joe rogan's podcasts that never seems to be the case, instead discussion leads to more moderate viewpoints rather than debates and winners. Only really see that on PBS lately.

That said, I do find many of his guests abhorant and just skip a fair bit of his podcasts.

Which ones did he ask to speak on?

But this has been a big topic of debate on his podcast subreddit as well. I think it mainly comes from the guests he has on, but Joe has written on Twitter about how getting left leaning guests on to talk politics is just a lot harder. Russell Brand is great and all, but no one else really seems interested for whatever reason.

Even what I just said, that he isn't, you should go look up, investigate, and see what YOU think.

Let's say you're a shy/introverted engineer working at Google. You are going to a bunch of diversity events because it's an easy way to progress in your career. You find things you disagree with, or think are potentially illegal, but overall agree with the end goal: more women / PoC at Google, and so put forward an analysis that supports the same goal, even asserting that diversity is a good thing, but indicating that Google's methodology is problematic, and possibly illegal. You shop it around, including to HR, who rejects it, get lots of constructive criticism and feedback from peers, revise it, and continue hoping you eventually do cause a good change in your organization.

Someone then sees it, gets angry, and proceeds to leak it to the press. A few days later, nearly every mainstream news organization has an article calling you a woman-hating sexist, calling your memo a "screed" and treating you like some kind of Nazi. Peers you've never spoken to start sending you threatening and hateful messages, not having even read your work, instead relying on clearly defamatory claims made by "news" organizations, totally misquoting what you've said, and even putting words in your mouth. Then you're fired for "perpetuating gender stereotypes" when you've explicitly drawn a line in your work between societal expectations on gender expression and biological predisposition due to sex, that is, you're fired for something you didn't actually say or do, and it's final, there's no appeal.

You're this young guy here, with such negative publicity, and stuck in a part of the country that's 90% leftist or left-leaning, being called all sorts of horrible things by thousands of people you don't even know. You check Twitter and see your name is associated with some of the most hateful words you could imagine.

Now, in this situation, do you respond to CNN who has just printed their 17th hitpiece on you, and hope they'll be fair to you, because you're not assertive enough to deal with the confrontation required if they start putting words in your mouth or asking leading questions? Or do you seek to tell your side of the story from people who are already presenting the story in a more neutral way?

He's got a footnote in it about how complaints about gay rights are just an attempt by Marxists to undermine capitalism for goodness sake! In an internal corporate communication about how to better deal with diversity. The mind boggles.

>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.”

Hard to do not roll my eyes when reading this. Even though I feel that there is a fringe a the feminist movement for which being a white male is a crime, this is just a fringe and I don't think it has anything to do with socialism other than these are 2 things that Damore hates.

- there are parts like this quote that made me go in one second from 'this is reasonable' to 'ok I see why he got fired'

- some parts are just stupid .. even though neuroticism is the right term and is not negative, it is had deep negative connotations for many people (not to mention that the big 5 is not exactly an uncontroversial model). Just don't use these words when arguing about a sensitive topic.

And yeah, there is a fringe of the feminist movement. Like all fringes, it is the loudest part of the movement. I think it is toxic to feminism (although that's just a feeling, hard to quantify the influence of such a fringe). I just try to ignore it, I don't really know how to argue with extremists tbh.

If he had, internet armchair scientists would be ridiculing him for being so uninformed about the topic that he didn't know the proper terminology.

This is, of course, a standard right-wing talking point about modern gender/race/etc. equality movements.

It's about as accurate as calling neoconservatism a Communist conspiracy because some notable early figures were anti-Stalinist ex-Trotskyites.

This is the danger of progressive supremacy and the only way out of this hell-hole is encouraging true diversity and inclusiveness -- diversity of thought that includes right-wing conservative viewpoints in addition to those of the left.

The left has intolerant people as well. "No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other."

However, somehow they aren't running the party like they are on the right.

This is nonsensical. Tolerance is the region between what you like and what you fight. There are lots of obviously bad things you shouldn't tolerate (like murder), and lots of mildly distasteful things you should.

Someone else being less tolerant of something than we think they should be isn't some special category of evil. As with anything else, you have to decide whether a particular case is bad enough that you must fight it, or ambiguous enough that it isn't worth the conflict.

The intolerant left seems to have Berkeley buttoned up.

Some of these aren't like the others.

And to make sure that people know: He's a liar. Even if you ignore him intentionally misrepresenting his PhD status, he boldly lied about his FIDE chess master status.