Open Letters- "Cancel Culture"

[karaddin]

I'm not going to waste time getting into the rest of it, but

Quote

I think you can level a few accusations at James Damore, and he can be criticised for a number of things. Was he arrogant to send around his memo? Maybe a little, but maybe that is just who he is. He wrote the memo in response to a diversity program that asked for feedback, so it wasn't unsolocited at all. It was also leaked to the wider public which is where the actual outcry originated from. 

Feedback via a specific channel. If my work sends me on a workshop for some specific issue and then ask for my feedback, and I decide to send a diatribe to my entire department I'm providing unsolicited feedback. And I'd never even think of doing that to my department of 200 people, let alone an entire corporation the size of Google.

Thinking you and only you have these keen insights, that those who are working on this issue already couldn't possibly have already put more thought and time into it, and you didn't get the praise you expected from your feedback so you better send it to the entire company is colossally arrogant. And attempting to go over the head of the people that actually solicited *some* feedback in the first place.

I'm not sure how "that could just be how he is" is a defense against the charge of arrogance, since that would just mean "how he is..." is arrogant. Which I'm perfectly ok with accepting. 

[DanteGabriel]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Its really easy. All you have to do is say is 

"I condemn the violent assault of Andy Ngo"

And I will apologise and retract my statement. 

I'm not your dancing monkey. I responded to your question and you don't have the decency or honesty to admit you lied about me. There is dishonesty, laziness, cowardice, and ignorance here, but it's pretty localized.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

I'm not your dancing monkey. I responded to your question and you don't have the decency or honesty to admit you lied about me. There is dishonesty, laziness, cowardice, and ignorance here, but it's pretty localized.

I mean you did me the decency of defending him being assaulted when you said a few posts back

"I just said I don't particularly mourn that a propagandizing shit-stirrer got punched in the face and had milkshakes and silly string thrown on him after he provoked confrontation."

So I don't really need you to dance for me. You already did a little cha cha cha for the whole board. Thanks. 

[Week]

1 minute ago, Triskele said:

This is great information on the Twitter origins.  I have to think though that most people in this discussion (internet writ large, not just this thread) are not aware of this background.  That is to say I don't doubt the dog whistle element you describe; just that this discussion has moved like wildfire, so most have no idea about the dog whistle element.

And many who rail against "cancel culture" won't care or reevaluate their views after learning that - which is giving their game away. "I want to be able to say what I want, when I want, when I want, to whomever I want, and I want zero repercussions. Repercussions are only justified for literal Nazis."

Yeah, nahh.

[Ran]

42 minutes ago, karaddin said:

@Knight Of Winter My assessment of his motives aside, I honestly can't wrap my head around the arrogance you'd need to pen that memo under those circumstances and send an unsolicited entire company email with it. And someone with that level of arrogance including the comments about women that he did in the memo? Absolutely zero chance I think that had even vaguely positive motives.

I feel like The Guardian piece with Damore and his partner is a fairly balanced account of it all. To me, it seems pretty clear it wasn't arrogance but rather not being able to read the room, so to speak. I will say that the hostile work environment described (specifically the one person who told him she would hound him until one of them was fired, whom I guessing was not fired...) doesn't speak very well about Google's openness.

I found this comment from Cordelia Fine particularly thoughtful:

Quote

Despite authoring two acclaimed books on gender, Fine, a leading feminist science writer, feels “torn in many different directions” by Damore. She believes his memo made many dubious assumptions and ignored vast swaths of research that show pervasive discrimination against women. But his summary of the differences between the sexes, she says, was “more accurate and nuanced than what you sometimes find in the popular literature”.

Some of Damore’s ideas, she adds, are “very familiar to me as part of my day-to-day research, and are not seen as especially controversial. So there was something quite extraordinary about someone losing their job for putting forward a view that is part of the scientific debate. And then to be so publicly shamed as well. I felt pretty sorry for him.”

 

[karaddin]

I think I'm operating under a different understanding of arrogance to some of you. It can be both, and I'm certainly happy to agree he failed to read the room. But thinking your memo under those circumstances is something the entire company should see is arrogance to me. Unless your job entails communicating with the entire company, thinking the entire company should see your ideas is inherently arrogant to me, that would be true even if I thought the very best of his ideas.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, karaddin said:

I think I'm operating under a different understanding of arrogance to some of you. It can be both, and I'm certainly happy to agree he failed to read the room. But thinking your memo under those circumstances is something the entire company should see is arrogance to me. Unless your job entails communicating with the entire company, thinking the entire company should see your ideas is inherently arrogant to me, that would be true even if I thought the very best of his ideas.

I think it's valid to accuse him of arrogance, he certainly thought he was 'righter' than everyone else. But I also think that might be part of his personality differences. 

What I have a problem with is, is the accusation he is trying to reduce the number of women in tech, when it seems quite clear his motivation was the complete opposite.

[TrueMetis]

8 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

On Nazi Punching:

As far as I'm concerned, punch as many Nazis as you like. Punch a Nazi while you are your way to the grocery store. Punch a Nazi while on a run. Call up your friends and plan a weekend of beer drinking and Nazi punching. Fine with me.

However, there is just one proviso. If you ever abuse your Nazi punching authority, then you will need to be constantly looking over your should. Because a time might come when somebody comes and knocks you out. That is a reminder that you are democracy's servant, not its master.

I mean, when your dealing with Nazis you've got to do that no matter what. They're Nazis after all, it doesn't matter how peaceful you are, they will still be violent.

21 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

No. I never said he did. You claimed I defended it. If I had, you'd be able to quote something to me and wouldn't fucking need to ask me about it.

I mean fuck I'll defend it, Ngo's actions are direct threats to people lives, he's helped far right nutjobs get names and his propaganda stokes their anger. Him getting his ass kicked is nothing in the face of that.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Was asking about Bennett.  But re: Shor, I'm not justifying his firing, I'm explaining how his actions could be legitimately questioned, but more than that all those examples you're calling mental gymnastics were a counter to you and Ran being absolutely incredulous that sharing a fact or truth could ever cause any harm or that responsibility for that harm could fall on the person sharing it.  Those are all examples of someone sharing a fact that causes material harm.  Call that mental gymnastics, I'm just answering your questions.

Privacy has nothing to fucking to with it.  It's about understanding the context of what's going on around you, thus the "objective truth doesn't exist in a vacuum" that was so troubling.  

And again, I think Shor's firing was wrong, but I understand how people could be pissed.

What Ran and I were incredulous about was somebody being sacked over tweeting a political science paper.  And now both of us are probably wondering whether somebody will get sacked because they have the incorrect views about math education.

This wasn't any old random fact like sharing somebody's private information.

And in one of the examples you cited, the issue does turn on privacy interest. You wrote, "If I gave out your home address and phone number, it's just stating an objective truth". I do think people have a legitimate interest in privacy. In those kind of cases, the question to ask is "how does sharing somebody's private information advance any scientific, political, philosophical, religious, or artistic viewpoint or is of legitimate public interest". Its hard to think of any example where posting somebody's private information would fulfill any of this criteria. 

As far as Bennett, I accept that he was let go for a series of screw ups.

[Week]

Going to the mat for Andy Ngo - another form of telling on yourself. He's fucking fine and he's still an alt-Right "journalist" pushing islamophobia and anti-immigrant narratives.

Did you shed a year for Linda Tirado? Maimed by police while doing her job? 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, TrueMetis said:

I mean, when your dealing with Nazis you've got to do that no matter what. They're Nazis after all, it doesn't matter how peaceful you are, they will still be violent.

So long as you punch actual Nazi's there is no problem. But, the moment you start punching people that aren't Nazi's, then there is a problem. Before you throw a punch ask yourself the following question,"How long is the chain of inferences I'm making to justify that this person is a Nazi". The longer the chain of inferences, the more likely you are overstepping. Use your Nazi punching authority wisely and thoughtfully.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Going to the mat for Andy Ngo - another form of telling on yourself. He's fucking fine and he's still an alt-Right "journalist" pushing islamophobia and anti-immigrant narratives.

Did you shed a year for Linda Tirado? Maimed by police while doing her job? 

Funny thing is I do think he is an alt right shit stirrer and is pushing some dodgy  narratives.. and I STILL don’t think it’s ok to physically assault him 

[DanteGabriel]

1 minute ago, Week said:

Going to the mat for Andy Ngo - another form of telling on yourself. He's fucking fine and he's still an alt-Right "journalist" pushing islamophobia and anti-immigrant narratives.

Did you shed a year for Linda Tirado? Maimed by police while doing her job? 

No, HoI doesn't care any more. I mean, he posted outrage about the initial assault and refused to respond when I pointed out the footage of Ngo cheerfully hanging out with Patriot Prayer thugs as they prepared to attack a business in Portland, but now he can't be bothered about Andy Ngo. Except when he thinks he caught me in a lie and can show me how little he cares by laugh-emojiing my posts about his cowardice and dishonesty.

[Week]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think it's valid to accuse him of arrogance, he certainly thought he was 'righter' than everyone else. But I also think that might be part of his personality differences. 

What I have a problem with is, is the accusation he is trying to reduce the number of women in tech, when it seems quite clear his motivation was the complete opposite.

If that was his motivation then he pretty clearly failed spectacularly. His behavior since* does not support such an assertion.

*Suing Google for discrimination against men, conservatives, and white people.

[DanteGabriel]

2 minutes ago, Week said:

If that was his motivation then he pretty clearly failed spectacularly. His behavior since* does not support such an assertion.

*Suing Google for discrimination against men, conservatives, and white people.

Don't forget doing a publicity tour with Jordan Peterson and Milo Y and other alt right media schmucks.

[karaddin]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think it's valid to accuse him of arrogance, he certainly thought he was 'righter' than everyone else. But I also think that might be part of his personality differences. 

What I have a problem with is, is the accusation he is trying to reduce the number of women in tech, when it seems quite clear his motivation was the complete opposite.

I'm sure this will come as a complete surprise to you, but sometimes people try and frame their argument as though they are supporting one thing (x) - or opposed to the thing which is in opposition to x - but are actually acting in bad faith and disguising their motives and believes as a rhetorical trick to try influence people against x and towards anti-x. 

It's commonly used in internet discourse over the last 10 years, I'm most aware of it being utilised for anti "woke" purposes. To tie it back to the thread title I would contend this behavior is behind JK (and some of the others, the hypocrisy had been noted earlier in the thread) usage of this letter ostensibly concerned about free speech.

You can even see some posters on this very forum engaging in such trickery, often explicitly claiming to support ideas/causes but their ongoing engagement in things like being a devil's advocate and the general trend of things they find concerning betray quite a different agenda.

[Week]

@karaddin, consistently the best of the board. 

[Ran]

12 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I'm sure this will come as a complete surprise to you, but sometimes people try and frame their argument as though they are supporting one thing (x) - or opposed to the thing which is in opposition to x - but are actually acting in bad faith and disguising their motives and believes as a rhetorical trick to try influence people against x and towards anti-x. 

I doubt the concept is a surprise to anyone.

That Damore -- when you take into consideration pieces like the Guardian coverage, and comments from academics commenting on the memo which at worst suggest he's erred in drawing too strong conclusions from his layman's understanding of the research -- is being labelled to be dishonest (or "trash" as I believe @Kalbear called him earlier in the thread) rather than someone who made one or more errors in judgment and was misguided strikes me as more surprising, but then I was pretty shocked to see a colleague threatend to "hound him" until he was fired, so perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that people feel strongly enough about certain topics that it's easier to villify and assume the worst.

 

 

[karaddin]

Ran - that was sarcasm. I'm very very confident that HoI is familiar with that particular approach.

[DanteGabriel]

5 minutes ago, Triskele said:

Bari Weiss just left NYT.