Would those be the interviews he's already doing with hate groups and extremists, who seem happy to cheer on their latest champion? If there was even the slightest doubt about the ideology motivating the memo before, there really shouldn't be now.
WSJ - https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-i-was-fired-by-google-15024...
Reason - http://reason.com/archives/2017/08/14/an-interview-with-jame...
Bloomberg - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-10/fired-goo...
He explicitly says he doesn't endorse "alt-right" ideology - http://money.cnn.com/2017/08/15/technology/culture/james-dam...
The guy is a introverted programmer, not a media strategist.
Debate his memo on the merits + stop doing the name-calling - it actually has the opposite desired outcome. If he's really wrong, take apart his piece line-by-line and show how. If it's so clear-cut and he's obviously racist, it shouldn't be too hard.
BTW, for reference purposes, here's the full memo - http://diversitymemo.com/ - make sure you reference this one and not the Gizmodo one that took out the various citations.
I didn't say "don't like", I said "hate groups and extremists". Yes, he's also talking to anyone else who will give him a microphone, but those aren't the ones that matter. And what he professes and what he does in practice are two different things.
> If he's really wrong, take apart his piece line-by-line and show how.
Leaving aside how many people have already done so, that is precisely the kind of time-wasting that people who keep dredging up old arguments enjoy. Not a single one of the "arguments" in the memo is new; they're the tired old ones that have been hashed out a thousand times over.
Also - please link to a line-by-line breakdown by someone refuting each point (and importantly: refuting to his actual words, not insinuations of what he might be thinking).
Citations are important and helpful to a productive debate.
Also consider whether you hold all refutations of random screeds to the same standard of evidence, or if this one somehow deserves more credence. The memo itself was written by a random engineer with no particular qualifications or expertise or interest in past work on the topic, but somehow anyone wishing to respond to it must write an academic paper with citations? And furthermore, somehow a "line-by-line breakdown" is required, rather than, for instance, finding and refuting the actual points made as in any other normal argument?
Have you got any evidence of this, because it sounds like bullshit?
> However viewers of Peterson’s videos arrived at his YouTube channel, research by the Guardian suggests they can quickly be pulled into alarming content.
Sounds like Google is the one at fault here...
Here is the version of the article I was citing, for the record: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stefan_Molyneux&o... I would recommend reading that version, rather than the rapidly "sanitized" version that omits various unfavorable media citations.