> The fact that plenty of people disagree with you doesn't support your argument.
First off, no, you are the only one in the discussion who brought up any charge of racism.
Second, no, this is blatant argumentum ad populum fallacy.
Third, the fact that you apparently refuse to cite anything from the memo is telling. I know that you cannot cite anything from the memo to support a charge of racism because I have read the memo and it contains nothing that can support a charge of racism even in your ideological framework.
If you disagree, quote the part that you think does so. I will be happy to explain why it does not.
> It feels like you're being defensive here because you agree with his rhetoric and you don't want to consider yourself sexist or racist, because "that makes you a bad person".
I am correctly pointing out that he said nothing wrong, because I agree with what he said. I am not sexist or racist; those qualities are moral failings, and therefore having them does make someone a bad person. There is objectively nothing sexist or racist about what was said, and therefore objectively nothing sexist or racist about agreeing with it. I have carefully explained why, repeatedly, throughout the thread.
I am not "being defensive", as that term implies a feeling of guilt. I feel no guilt, because I have done nothing wrong, and believe nothing wrong. I feel annoyance, because you are trying to tell me objectively incorrect things that you reasonably ought to know are incorrect, and because you are attacking an innocent person (Damore) whom I care about (at least on a philosophical level).
> You can have racist, sexist thoughts, and maybe in other cases still generally be good in your actions. This doesn't define your core being, even if you still have hateful thoughts. You'll never be able to improve yourself if you're unwilling to have your beliefs challenged.
It comes across that you say this with the intent of "giving me an out", but really it just comes across as condescending. The only "hateful thoughts" I have in this regard are towards a) those who promote an altered, unjust definition of "sexism" and "racism" in order to rationalize harmful, sexist, racist, morally incorrect policies like DEI; b) those who make false presumptions about my mental state.
I have "had my beliefs challenged" constantly by people like you for well over a decade. "Having one's beliefs challenged" does not entail changing them. "Improving oneself" does not entail agreeing with your viewpoint, either. It entails refining one's ability to reject it. Because it is incorrect.
> He's become a hero of the alt-right, specifically because his approach to this aligns with their playbook. It's not character assassination, it's truth. He's trying to phrase things in a palatable way, but his underlying message is that minorities and women don't belong in tech.
> Though he said he doesn't support the alt-right, he went on a media tour after being fired, on alt-right platforms. This is also something that generally aligns with alt-right playbooks. Distance yourself in speech, but not in action.
All of this is complete unfounded nonsense, repeatedly and directly contradicted by what Damore actually said. You have not read the memo. You have looked at the memo, pulled out some words, and come to a conclusion driven by your own ideological biases. But your understanding of the meaning is objectively incorrect. What you are doing here is roughly equivalent to reading someone say "on average, men are taller and physically stronger than women" and saying "get a load of this person, who apparently doesn't think women should play sports". And then also extending the point to "minorities", based on absolutely nothing at all.
(If you dispute the claim that men are on average taller and physically stronger than women, please feel free to cite your studies.)
The memo is here: https://www.jamesdamore.com/articles/googles-ideological-ech... Please feel free to read it this time.