Google Memo

[Fife]

[ "No! YOU'RE A MISOGYNIST!!!"

Evergreen:

[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?"

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.

It's working! Can't you tell? The internet isn't filled with stories about, "evil White male at Google," it's all about "Google has been captured by the SJWs."

p.s. Except for the MSM, of course, which IS captured by women, minorities & weirdos.

[Speaker to Animals]

In particular, if you want to inflict damage upon the SJWs, you have to deprive them of their approval, which actually is not so difficult. This is why they are working so hard to censor people on social media. They cannot stand it.

Women in particular are highly respondent to social approval and shaming. Much, much more so than a grown man who has not been feminized. Some of the most devastating attacks on the left in recent months has been the rise of attractive women in the alt-right and other conservative/traditionalist outlets who get massive amounts of attention and approval.

Women see those view counts and thumbs up (approval) ratings and they crave it. They crave it for the same reason they crave those thumbs up notices in Facebook or Instagram.

Using this strategy, the right can shift women away from the left relatively fast, in my opinion. I get what Hash is saying about this collectivism being a female phenomenon (I agree and it's covered fairly well by Jack Donovan in The Way of Men), but if you look at history, women generally have been the bastion of traditionalism and conservatism. They were the ones holding men accountable to it (carrying your shield or on it).

Furthermore, what the left has done has resulted in enormous amount of unhappiness and discontent among women. As Jordan Peterson said in that video linked earlier, freedom and happiness are two very, very different things. Women tend to want happiness whereas men tend to want freedom. Feminism worked because they equated freedom with happiness, which turned out untrue. I wouldn't call it a lie, since they really had no idea back in the 1960s that it would turn out this badly. But it did turn out badly for women.

This stuff, though it's billed as a woman-friendly ideology and economic/political system, is terrible for women. By multiple metrics women have been shown to grow steadily less happy year-by-year since the 1960s.

This is why, in my opinion, the really big and rapid shift will happen when a large percentage of women gravitate away from left feminism and reestablish some form of right feminism that recognizes biological and social realities. I strongly believe there will be a kind o red pilled feminism in the near future (and may already be emerging). I think these women are going to get quite a lot of approval on social media, and that approval will draw in all the women who are not really engaged in this sort of philosophical and political discussion. Most women out there are "feminist" only publicly. I doubt most of them even know what feminism means. The entire female foundation of the left is on such shaky ground as to be a joke at this point.

[Martin Hash]

It has to be made UNFASHIONABLE to be an SJW. Shaming fucking works.

[BjornP]

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. 2

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." 1

Bolded part 1: That's a fine first step, sure. But what then? You may not want to engage the SJW crowds directly yourself, but you still need to win their hearts and minds of those who listen, or might listen to them, no? If the SJW crowds become too big to ignore for the average citizen, how will you convince people that the SJW talking points are wrong by simply repeating that people shouldbe respectful and freely express themselves?

Bolded part 2: I don't think so. Most of their vocabulary is misuse of already existing, legitimate terms, anyway. Misogny exists even if SJW's call lots of things normal people would not misogny, misogny. Same with any other words they use. Privilege is also a word that predates their use. Rejecting their use, their understanding of these words, and explaining to others why you do so, seems more productive than not responding to the accusations at all.

Using their own vocabulary and definitions in order to undermine their fundamental beliefs, I don't see how that validates their beliefs. Using terms that they relate to demonstrates willingness to engage, intellectual bravery, and respect. Now, we can agree that they may not warrant much respect for their ideas, but strip away their idiot beliefs and they are individuals who simply choose wrong, thought wrong. As individual human beings, and fellow citizens, showing them an ounce of respect and learning to use their own words to prove them wrong, could make you more persuasive. If not among them, then among those who listen, read or watch your exchange...

[DBTrek]

Using their own vocabulary and definitions in order to undermine their fundamental beliefs, I don't see how that validates their beliefs. Using terms that they relate to demonstrates willingness to engage, intellectual bravery, and respect. Now, we can agree that they may not warrant much respect for their ideas, but strip away their idiot beliefs and they are individuals who simply choose wrong, thought wrong. As individual human beings, and fellow citizens, showing them an ounce of respect and learning to use their own words to prove them wrong, could make you more persuasive. If not among them, then among those who listen, read or watch your exchange...

It validates their beliefs by putting the focus on their bullshit definitions. Does a lion concern himself with the opinions of sheep? No. So if you're on defense, parrying charges of misogyny/racism/privilege, then you obviously believe the SJW's have struck a blow and need to be refuted. If, instead, you ignore their screeching and point out that the situation at hand is actually a matter of free expression, then the fools have to come on to *your* turf to debate.

Suppose th eSJW's are smart enough not to come to your turf (they're not). In this case you have one side screaming invectives and labeling people, and the other side laying out relatable arguments for why our shared values as Americans are preferable to sliding down the path to totalitarianism.

Win/win.

Fight on your terms, or allow your parallel narrative to stand against their jacked-up accusations.

The only way you lose is if you honestly believe identity politics and screaming invective is more convincing to the masses than appealing to their core values. If that's the case, then the war is already over, and donning the mask of your enemy doesn't make you a winner, it simply makes you a better un-American than the previous version.

[Speaker to Animals]

Sometimes the lion needs to run like the wind and tear everybody to shit just to keep the order of things.

[The Conservative]

Dude, learn to crawl. THEN talk to me about standing.

He's gone a little off the deep end again, but let us be real here... those women who don't like men holding doors for them as a sign of respect and being a gentleman deserve to take a long walk off a short pier with cement shoes on.

I don't know about that, I have no problem with folks being offended by whatever harebrained thing they decide to be offended by. The problem is when they can leverage what personally offends them into punitive action against others, as we saw at Google.
The fact that the engineer's memo offended people isn't a problem.
The fact that the offended people can terminate his job and send a warning shot to anyone who isn't on the same ideological page as them is the problem.

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.

Anyone can be fired for any reason or no reason, it's called an Employee and Will Clause.

As for the rest, tyranny vs weak is the same as men vs women. Women have always claimed themselves to be the weaker of the sexes, but yet at the same time wanted to be treated the same. Yet when they are it's unfair, so we have to create a special rule or set of rules for them because otherwise, it would be "unfair"...

Then it becomes about percentages, women vs men in the work place, equal pay, etc... it all comes down to how people treat women as the weaker gender, or person or perceived to. Women will always play the weaker gender till they feel they playing that card is no longer to their advantage.

I have seen it too many times, but the fact is that if we just treated them the same as we do men in the work force, women would either learn how to make it or fail... creating rules and regulations to "even" the playing field is not only sexist, but detrimental to any woman and man working environment. For it's already saying that women aren't the same, and to even the playing field "x" must happen...

To me that's wrong.

[BjornP]

It validates their beliefs by putting the focus on their bullshit definitions. Does a lion concern himself with the opinions of sheep? No. So if you're on defense, parrying charges of misogyny/racism/privilege, then you obviously believe the SJW's have struck a blow and need to be refuted. If, instead, you ignore their screeching and point out that the situation at hand is actually a matter of free expression, then the fools have to come on to *your* turf to debate.

Suppose th eSJW's are smart enough not to come to your turf (they're not). In this case you have one side screaming invectives and labeling people, and the other side laying out relatable arguments for why our shared values as Americans are preferable to sliding down the path to totalitarianism.

Win/win.

Fight on your terms, or allow your parallel narrative to stand against their jacked-up accusations.

The only way you lose is if you honestly believe identity politics and screaming invective is more convincing to the masses than appealing to their core values. If that's the case, then the war is already over, and donning the mask of your enemy doesn't make you a winner, it simply makes you a better un-American than the previous version.

You assume the lion is so above it all in power and prestige that it should not concern itself with the opinions of sheep. Well, then why would the lion care about being seen as a sheep, if it knows it's a lion?

Even if you are a lion, are all Americans lions? Those people who are now SJW's, were they lions before they adopted the screechy ways of calling people who didn't believe their crap racists/sexist/whateverists? If the sheep are wrong to be sheep, is it sheep-like for the lion to want to persuade the sheep to want to become lions? If all Americans are lions, but some are young, gullible and about to become persuaded to become sheep, should they too not be the target of those relateable arguments? Emphasis on...relateable.

If the SJW's are Americans, and your (hopefully true) assumption of all Americans having shared values is true, then making your hope for a more mutually tolerant America understood, and sympathetic-sounding to as many segments of US society as possible, seems like the thing to do.

[DBTrek]

If the SJW's are Americans, and your (hopefully true) assumption of all Americans having shared values is true, then making your hope for a more mutually tolerant America understood, and sympathetic-sounding to as many segments of US society as possible, seems like the thing to do.

We agree, we just have different approaches.

Your approach involves appealing to their sympathies using the loaded terms and associated baggage of the SJWs, which I think is a mistake. Hash would include using their tactics as well.

My approach is to appeal to the shared values of free expression, free thinking, and fair play without ever touching that third rail of identity politics. Let the SJWs attack our widely held American ideals - but don't make the mistake of arguing what misogyny, privilege, or racism is with them. Don't even address their claims. Let them address yours.