Hacker News Reader

Comment by vowelless | Hacker News Reader

This is true. If the memo wasn't enough, him immediately going to right wing YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Mike cernovich, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, etc. is suspicious. [1]

Generally I wouldn't have minded if he went to right wing outlets, as long as he had also gone to left wing outlets. I was willing to listen to his reasoning. But it became clear after the memo came out that he didn't engage with left wingers and maybe he was indeed just appealing to the right.

[1] I don't want to use "right wing" in a disparaging way. I think classical liberalism is perhaps right of center today. I think some of the right wing narratives make sense, but with big caveats. The far right is just a slip away, though. And they would hunt people like me down...

Edit: I don't mean right wing in a disparaging way. I enjoy Joe Rogan (his interviews with NDT and Lawrence Krause are a lot of fun), Dave Rubin (his interview with Faisal is fantastic) and Jordan Peterson. But they are clearly classical liberal, which is arguably right of center today.

Maybe I was extreme in saying far right is just a slip away. I think similar things can happen on the left too of course. Let just not go to the "far-*"...

View on HN

If people "on the left" won't allow him to speak, where exactly do you expect him to go?

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.

> If people "on the left" won't allow him to speak, where exactly do you expect him to go?

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.

He sent out a company-wide memo on a very controversial subject pretending to be an expert.

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

This has nothing to do with being right or left. It is simply a human decency thing. A manager and company is responsible for everyone and after he shared such views with his name you could never keep him and have him working along side women. Google did exactly what they had to do. It is not complicated.

This is the heckler's veto. Free speech is a cultural matter, not just a protection from the federal and state governments.

But now you're getting into the "free speech for me, not for thee" part. You're basically saying that Damore is entitled to free speech and protection, but that Google and his former co-workers are not. Remember, who you work with is part of the freedom of association which is a component of free speech.

Firing someone is speech? A whole lot of laws disagree with you about that.

Firing someone is part of the right to free association.

It's limited. You don't get to fire someone for being black, or Jewish, or male, and crucially in California, for political speech you disagree with.

This is a strawman I'm very hard pressed to find anyone in HN at least who would deny Goolgle's right or another other party's right of writing a rebuttal to his claims. A free and open internal debate is exactly what Damore was trying to start. Firing to me at least is not speech, it's an inherently violent act.

Google is trying to run a company and having someone like Damore does not help that cause.

It's not a strawman if plenty of people in this comment section are making the exact argument. And if I can't fire an employee for being hostile to my other employees, then I do not have freedom of association.

You do not have pure freedom of association. Both a set of laws and our culture do not allow you to refuse to do business with people.

Yes. However, none of those laws prevent you from firing someone who is creating a hostile work environment for your other employees.

freedom of association is incidental to my initial response. I was speaking about freedom of speech they are different things.

Google is a private company. They have no obligation and having an employee that does not get along pretty obvious has to go.

Why also nobody is going to hire him.

My hotel is a private company and I've found my guests and employees prefer not to interact with black people. Glad you support my right to refuse black guests.

> If people "on the left" won't allow him to speak, where exactly do you expect him to go?

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

"The far right is just a slip away from the reasonable right, therefore the reasonable right is dangerous?"

I'm pretty sure this is textbook slippery slope fallacy

Wait, Joe Rogan is considered a right wing youtuber? I listen to his show all the time and I'm a pretty big liberal and while he sometimes does the whole "everyone is sooooo PC now" thing, he also talks negatively about Trump, the GOP and right wing politics constantly.

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.

As I mentioned, I don't disparage "right wing". I actually enjoy Joe Rogans podcast, and also Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson. All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today (individualism vs. collectivism, equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome, etc). But AFAIK, damore never came to the young Turks, Chapo trap house, which are leftist podcasts. I could be wrong.

Do you think any of those would have had him on?

Would you go on the Young Turks if you were him? It'd be like walking before a firing squad.

I would go on a 1 on 1 interview with Cenk Uygur.

And you've watched the one he did with Sam Harris?

Yes. What is wrong with that interview?

Well, it has been a few years, and it's a very long interview, so I hope you understand I'm not going to be very specific.

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.

I remember finishing that interview thinking that Cenk was the most intellectually dishonest host I had seen in a long time. Sam's patience from beginning to end was extremely impressive.

Okay, but running to Molyneux is instant confirmation of the things people thought about him.

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.

Uhh, he had The Entire Internet doing that at him 24/7, why do you think there needs to be more?

I think he didn't do much to defend or clarify his arguments and instead took exactly the path his detractors (myself included) expected from the minute we read his "poor oppressed conservative" portion.

Well, whether you disparage it or not, grouping Joe Rogan and Milo together doesn't seem very accurate.

GP is asking you how you concluded that Joe Rogan is right wing podcast.

> All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today

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.

Jordan Peterson especially sounds like every traditionalist Catholic I know. Which is fine, but at least they wear their stripes proudly.

Which is why I stated that they are right of center... I agree, classical liberalism is basically right wing / conservative / libertarian. America generally is right wing, going back to it's founding.

I've consistenly voted Labour / Labor for all my life, and my poliics haven't changed. I still believe in looking after the elderly, children and the ill, and negotation. I loved Milliband. But the left (at least Labour in the UK) has been siezed by a hard left group called Momentum, that supports far-left political violence, is often openly hostile to people based on skin color and gender. Classical liberals haven't changed, the far-left has just taken over left wing politics.

Small edit: "and negotation" should be "and collective negotation"

Most of those "classical liberals" are now branded "leftists".

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 doubt he got many invites.

> All three of them are solidly classical liberal, which is probably right of center today

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.

I'm sorry but I need to call this out. There is no difference between equality of opportunities and equality of outcomes for any significant population size. The latter is a direct consequence of the former; and anyone that believes we are close to having equality of opportunities in America is wilfully ignorant.

That sounds like absolute nonsense.

If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order, I think you can be considered right wing. Supporting pot legalization doesn't erase that.

"If you spend a lot of time railing on "SJWs", and comparatively little time advocating for an alternative path to a more egalitarian social order"

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.

What hyperbole are you objecting to?

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.

"What hyperbole are you objecting to?"

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.

He absolutely is not. He’s (moderately) liberal. The absurdly polarized social media scene has moved the window.

Yeah I think it's unfortunate that Rogan gets cast that way. His interview with SargonOfAkkad is pretty telling in that regard. He pulls no punches there and says pretty emphatically that he doesn't identify with a lot of what he says.

Any living male with a pulse is generally considered to be "right-wing", particularly if they ask questions or exhibit any skepticism towards mainstream liberal culture.

So was he disingenuous, or did he lack understanding? Pick one.

Are you operating under the belief that humans can only assign a single emotion to another...?

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?

Or maybe the "left-wing" like tech crunch just flat out lie about him repeatedly. I don't appreciate any the right wing youtubers you cite, but judging by the quality of this article, I'm glad he had other opportunities to speak. In this instance I do think the left wing is stifling expression and I can't abide by that, if you think I'm exaggerating, read the memo he didn't publish but request internal criticism of, and he was fired for it by google.

> Generally I wouldn't have minded if he went to right wing outlets, as long as he had also gone to left wing outlets. I was willing to listen to his reasoning. But it became clear after the memo came out that he didn't engage with left wingers and maybe he was indeed just appealing to the right.

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).

This is a minor aside, but I don't think Joe is a conservative. I think that he said during the midnight election comedy stream that had he not promised to vote for Gary Johnson when he came on the show, that he would've had to pull the lever for Hillary. He doesn't like social justice stuff, but other than that, he's kind of a big hippy.

and denies the moon landing. That doesn't make him right wing, but it sure makes him a less credible person.

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

He denied it 11 years ago you mean, by that blog post. He has changed his stance, as seen here:

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.

I had no idea, thanks!

He mentioned in one of his interviews that very few left wing outlets would even invite him to interviews.

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

The fact you'd like a gay liberal as right-wing is disconcerting but I agree, and independently, came to the same conclusion that is is strange how many shows he popped up on so fast.

If the memo wasn't enough

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 have yet to see genuine criticism of [Jordan Peterson] which stands up to scrutiny.

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...

Never knew joe organ was right wing. I've been listening to his podcasts which seem pretty good.

I don't think he is, a gave a couple reasons why here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16099356

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.

He's not, but if you're a gallon of gasoline, the remotest spark can seem like a huge threat to your very existence, which is what I took the overreaction to the memo to be. He spoke his mind, with citations, and he was torched for it, and the left wing outlets except for Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin had no interest in letting his real story come out, because the overreaction, the firing and the ongoing assault on his character is shameful if you ask me.

> the left wing outlets except for Joe Rogan and Dave Rubin had no interest in letting his real story come out

Which ones did he ask to speak on?

He's not "right wing". Hating SJWs and the extreme left isn't right wing. People are complicated and labeling someone as right wing to invalidate someone's every position is as bad as what the right does to the left.

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.

Those activities may not make someone right wing, but they're at risk of slamming into the right half of the bulkhead if there's turbulence. When things get heated, it makes them hard to tell apart from people who are awful and also use that kind of rhetoric.

Christ. He isn't, and for the love of god, stop reading things that people on the internet tell you and immediately accepting them as fact.

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

The way I read these actions weren't "running to the right" rather "fleeing from the biased leftist media." For one, Rubin is left leaning, so is Peterson, though because they're generally fair, they get consistently mislabeled, but that's also how I imagine it must feel in his situation.

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?

Just like Trump seems stuck in some kind of info-loop with Fox News, Damore seemed to get most of his memo ideas from those youtubers in the first place.

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.

marxists.... peterson?

Your comment is too brief to parse properly but yes Peterson talks about "Cultural Marxism" on his YouTube channel and so does Damore in the famous memo.

I wondered what you were ranting about so I skimmed Damore's memo :

>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.

You haven't been on the Internet in the past few years, have you? :). The fringe, while a small minority, has also been the loudest part of the feminist movement in this decade, and it's the impact of that fringe that can be seen responsible for such overreaction to Damore's memo.

Well, most of Damore's memo is not that shocking indeed although :

- 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.

What word should he have used? Negative connotations or not, "neuroticism" is the accepted term for the Big Five trait he was referring to. Should he have made up his own name for it?

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.

> 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!

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.

He did an article in the Guardian where he revealed his autism. It was very surprising considering the dreadful opinion piece the Guardian had done on the memo before that.

It's no different than moderate Muslims having no social refuge other than where Salafist-Jihadists (eg: al-Qaeda, Isil) roam freely -- modereate conservatives have no social refuge other than blatant racists and sexists, neo-nazis, and other generally unpleasant undesirables.

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.

Yes, it is good and valuable for a society to be tolerant of diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. The limit to tolerance is being tolerant of intolerance.

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.

> The limit to tolerance is being tolerant of intolerance.

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 left has intolerant people as well...However, somehow they aren't running the party like they are on the right.

The intolerant left seems to have Berkeley buttoned up.

I would argue they made that bed for themselves.

> YouTubers like Stefan Molyneux, Jordan Peterson, Mike cernovich, Joe Rogan, Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, etc. is suspicious. [1]

Some of these aren't like the others.

Um, guilt by association much?

It's really sad that we have people still arguing about the intent of his memo when his actions afterwards make it quite clear what his stance actually was.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com