Google Memo

[Speaker to Animals]

During the Arian crisis in the early middle period, it seemed like everybody was going with Arianism. There was a man named Athanasius of Alexandria who was the biggest critic and defender of orthodoxy. One day somebody asked him how he could possibly oppose Arianism when so many have converted to it. His reply was that, even if all the world became Arian, it would be Athanasius against the world (Athanasius contra mundus).

St. Athanasius was only concerned with the truth as best he could discern it. He judged his success in the world not by the opinions of others but by his own assessment of his fidelity to the truth. This is a distinctly masculine trait. Women are more concerned with the opinions of others, their appearances, etc.

The problem we have today is not women advocating for their self-interest. They should do that. The problem is that a large number of males have abrogated their self-interests, as well as their duty to seek actual justice, in pursuit of external approval. When I look on social media, all I see are these betas posting insipid attacks of this man -- for, again, speaking the truth -- in an attempt to curry favor from the feminist women and other betas. These men will gleefully throw other men under a bus for that approval because that's how they measure their value. Their value is literally based on their perceived utility to women. They have adopted the female trait of concerning themselves more with the opinions of others than the truth.

What we see today is certainly a decline in the virtue of women, but more fundamentally it represents a crisis in masculinity among men who enable this behavior.

In no rational universe should a man look at what happened at Google this week and go on to defend it, even tangentially by insulting and attacking any other man who criticizes it. This is fucking insane.

If a man cannot speak the truth in order to divert an organization's course towards disaster without fear of being fired because the truth hurts the feelings of women, then I would argue the entire feminist project is not only built on a lie, but has been demonstrated a failure. I don't believe that. I do happen to believe women can function just fine in the corporate environment and that this is a cultural and moral decline we are seeing rather than simply the necessary product of women's participation in the workforce. But still.. you don't help women or even feminism by attacking the critics. The critics have the science and the truth on their side with this one. People like DB are defending feelings and lashing out at people who speak the truth because they need that social approval more than they care about real justice, scientific truth, or even a favorable outcome.

[Fife]

I see it as a "tyranny of the weak" vs freedom of expression issue, not men vs. women.
In fact, any cursory examination of the story will reveal that men and women are aligned on both sides of the argument, so trying to cast it as a gender war is, by default, a bold declaration that one does not actually understand what has transpired.

:noddinghead:

Cf. the much smaller story about Lena Dunham and the soft pogrom against American Airlines: https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/08/08 ... ng-to-you/

Conform or be cast out.

[BjornP]

It's the same war it's always been - war against traditional values and society. Free speech is on the chopping block, isn't that a little more relatable than men vs women? The entire idea of meritocracy is under siege from identity politics. Isn't that a better way to frame the debate than "Privileged vs. oppressed"? Who will willingly ally themselves with hating free speech and people being rewarded for their works?
Almost no one.
But turn the battle into "Privileged white men oppressing minorities and creating hostile work environments for females" and suddenly half the people are ready to fall in line against free speech and meritocracy.

Clearly it's idiotic to engage these people on their own terms. Frame the debate on the right terms, win the debate before it even gets off the ground.

If SJW's and the people who accept their narratives don't believe there is a meritocracy on account of their beliefs that white men are the source of all social ills in the US (and the world), that it is certainly an uphill battle. At some point, you will have to attack the premises of their arguments.

I am struck by the way being black in the US seems to have went from "Black Pride" in the 1970's, to now where the narrative seems to be that they're all victims of the white man. It is in a sense, a validation of the biological racism of old, where the white man was at the top of the racial pyramid and the black man lowest. The only difference now, among US blacks and SJW "thinkers", is that the racial hierachy is somehow still accepted as fact, as natural, but instead of being resigned to slavery, they're now angry at this supposed hierachy if they're black and feeling guilty if they're white... but neither seem to really reject the racial hierachical thinking of old. It is part learned helplessness, part case of "a soft bigotry of low expectations" on part of those who feel guilt about being... better, white, more privileged.

So, I think you should engage them on their own terms. Not using their methods, or way of rationalizing, nor their decibel levels, but if they're trying to own the discourse on social change by saying that they're the defenders against racism, homophobia, bigotry, etc., that will resonate among alot of people. After all, few people want to be known as racist, homophobe, etc. But strike at the heart of their legitimacy as defenders of minorities, and then make the point about meritocracy. That way ought to first deflate any notion by minority groups that they're simply victims, dead fish following the stream, and end with the point that they should look upon themselves as equals and as individuals who can accomplish their goals if they work hard for them.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Dats Raciss!!!!!

[DBTrek]

So, I think you should engage them on their own terms. Not using their methods, or way of rationalizing, nor their decibel levels, but if they're trying to own the discourse on social change by saying that they're the defenders against racism, homophobia, bigotry, etc., that will resonate among alot of people. After all, few people want to be known as racist, homophobe, etc. But strike at the heart of their legitimacy as defenders of minorities, and then make the point about meritocracy. That way ought to first deflate any notion by minority groups that they're simply victims, dead fish following the stream, and end with the point that they should look upon themselves as equals and as individuals who can accomplish their goals if they work hard for them.

How do you engage them on subjects/accusations like "White Privilege" without, by default, conceding the entire battleground to the realm of SJW-speak? If you acknowledge or lend legitimacy to their vocabulary/definitions, you've already accepted argumentative constraints that will see to your defeat.

I mean, give me an example.

Defend the Google memo guy against explicit charges of misogyny, sexism, and biological supremacy *without* accepting the limitations and implied "truths" that are attached to those terms.

If you start off with "It's not misogynist BECAUSE . . ."
The counter will be "It IS misogynist BECAUSE . . ."
. . . and now you're arguing Misogyny.
Guess who's going to win that one.

To me it seems better to ignore their traps and start the battle on more favorable terms. Something like "Let's talk about respectful, thoughtful. free expression, and whether it is preferable to a shared set of ideals strictly enforced through threats of termination."

[Martin Hash]

If SJW's and the people who accept their narratives don't believe there is a meritocracy on account of their beliefs that white men are the source of all social ills in the US (and the world), that it is certainly an uphill battle. At some point, you will have to attack the premises of their arguments.

Yes. Fighting another flank just let's them charge through the holes in our line. The Left uses Oral Illusions, VERY EFFECTIVE Oral illusions to control the narrative. They always have. Rational people are ill-prepared for such tactics, always falling back on their heels in defense. We MUST dig in against the charges: "No, you are the Racists! You are the aggressors! You are the enemies of liberty!" It's the audience that we, the defenders, are talking to, NOT the women, minorities & weirdos - those people aren't listening to anything we say, why should they? They're winning.

[Speaker to Animals]

It's the same war it's always been - war against traditional values and society. Free speech is on the chopping block, isn't that a little more relatable than men vs women? The entire idea of meritocracy is under siege from identity politics. Isn't that a better way to frame the debate than "Privileged vs. oppressed"? Who will willingly ally themselves with hating free speech and people being rewarded for their works?
Almost no one.
But turn the battle into "Privileged white men oppressing minorities and creating hostile work environments for females" and suddenly half the people are ready to fall in line against free speech and meritocracy.

Clearly it's idiotic to engage these people on their own terms. Frame the debate on the right terms, win the debate before it even gets off the ground.

If SJW's and the people who accept their narratives don't believe there is a meritocracy on account of their beliefs that white men are the source of all social ills in the US (and the world), that it is certainly an uphill battle. At some point, you will have to attack the premises of their arguments.

I am struck by the way being black in the US seems to have went from "Black Pride" in the 1970's, to now where the narrative seems to be that they're all victims of the white man. It is in a sense, a validation of the biological racism of old, where the white man was at the top of the racial pyramid and the black man lowest. The only difference now, among US blacks and SJW "thinkers", is that the racial hierachy is somehow still accepted as fact, as natural, but instead of being resigned to slavery, they're now angry at this supposed hierachy if they're black and feeling guilty if they're white... but neither seem to really reject the racial hierachical thinking of old. It is part learned helplessness, part case of "a soft bigotry of low expectations" on part of those who feel guilt about being... better, white, more privileged.

So, I think you should engage them on their own terms. Not using their methods, or way of rationalizing, nor their decibel levels, but if they're trying to own the discourse on social change by saying that they're the defenders against racism, homophobia, bigotry, etc., that will resonate among alot of people. After all, few people want to be known as racist, homophobe, etc. But strike at the heart of their legitimacy as defenders of minorities, and then make the point about meritocracy. That way ought to first deflate any notion by minority groups that they're simply victims, dead fish following the stream, and end with the point that they should look upon themselves as equals and as individuals who can accomplish their goals if they work hard for them.

I don't think people are wrong to engage in identity politics, but I do think the white liberals are in the wrong in that they are doing so out of a kind of passive racism and sexism (they are the benevolent master race or superior sex). As if women need these men to defend them, or blacks need some white millennial software engineer to "advocate" for them.

We all have different interests and those interests naturally line up into groups differentiated by our sex, race, and culture. If this wasn't the case, then there wouldn't exist any practical reason for a corporation to pursue diversity at all in the first place.

We should separate the kinds of vapid white knighting we see from certain individuals from reasonable efforts by various demographics to look out for their own self-interests. The fact that we live in a society where the demographics of whites and of men, and of white men in particular, are so demonized that they are not even allowed to voice or pursue their self-interests is a pretty big problem, though, and it comes from the SJWs.

I think you are right that they do it out of soft bigotry themselves, and it really has nothing to do with genuine concern for the interests of others. I think these people derive their validation from social approval, and behaving like this provides them with that approval.

[Martin Hash]

The Left has made Identity Politics their weapon of choice, and deny it's use by the rest of us. That's the narrative DB is willing to accept in the name of cooperation, "Why can't we all just get along?"

[Fife]

Don't be dopes, people.

"Men" aren't the victims, or the enemy, of the state. Every single individual not part of the herd is.

Kristallnacht is now.

[DBTrek]

The Left has made Identity Politics their weapon of choice, and deny it's use by the rest of us. That's the narrative DB is willing to accept in the name of cooperation, "Why can't we all just get along?"

No, it's actually you advocating for accepting their narrative and then, in some inexplicable fashion, using it against them.
Apparently, in your mind, when the SJW's appear with their knives out for the google engineer and screaming "He's a misogynist!" - the brilliant Hash plan is to scream back "No! YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST!!!"


Right on.
Good luck with all that.