Google Manifesto Lawsuit Published

[Liriena]

Leave it to a fascist to be pedantic about whether Nazism is fascist.

Yeah how dare he claim that National Socialism isn't real fascism. It's not like Stalinists and Marxists and other commies do the exact same thing with their failed states.

Whataboutisms are lame.

"See, mommy, Timmy steals from his mommy's purse too, so you can't scold me for stealing from yours!"

That's the logic in your response there.

[Hirota]

*bullshit ad hom about me being too "far left" to know who's really far right*

Not an argument.

Also, he made an interview with Stefan fucking Molyneux, for one.

For someone who likes to wheel out the fallacies you sure seem to have a personal blind spot on your judicious overuse of the association fallacy as a flimsy argument.

[Liriena]

Not an argument.

Also, he made an interview with Stefan fucking Molyneux, for one.

For someone who likes to wheel out the fallacies you sure seem to have a personal blind spot on your judicious overuse of the association fallacy as a flimsy argument.

Just out of curiosity, are you responding to my post as is or in context?

Also... I "like to wheel out the fallacies"? Since when?

[Montchevre]

Are their charters any different? Does Fox's charter claim to be a political organization? Does Google's claim, to the contrary, to be an apolitical organization? Legally, they are both corporations with no political sway or influence. In any case though, my point remains. Does Hobby Lobby as an example better suit you?

Both Google and Fox absolutely do have political influence (potential for the former), and businesses are not supposed to fire their employees for their political views anyway. Fox wouldn't hire somebody who wore Che Guevara T-shirts in the first place.

Of course they do in reality. But legally they are private corporations that have the right to fire employees for workplace disruptions since worker protection laws in the US are notoriously lax. I don't know about California law, but by US law and by Texan law (my state) no crime was committed by Google. So they guy came out afterwards and said it was because he supported Trump vocally. He then made sure to demonstrate how objective and rational he was by prattling on for PragerU about how the evil left hates free speech so much.

[Oil exporting People]

Leave it to a fascist to be pedantic about whether Nazism is fascist.

You're the one who is flippantly using the terms, so do expect to get called out on it. Further, that was just the most glaring issue, as I said; the fact you seem to seriously believe Breitbart is a Fascist and/or NatSoc publication shows you don't even know the first thing about either ideology represents.

[Hirota]

For someone who likes to wheel out the fallacies you sure seem to have a personal blind spot on your judicious overuse of the association fallacy as a flimsy argument.

Just out of curiosity, are you responding to my post as is or in context?

Also... I "like to wheel out the fallacies"? Since when?

Mostly in context. But I'm catching up on the thread so I'll elaborate when I can.

Also, the second part, about wheeling out the fallacies was supposed to be a compliment from someone who tries (and sometimes fails) to use logical reasoning.

[Liriena]

Leave it to a fascist to be pedantic about whether Nazism is fascist.

You're the one who is flippantly using the terms, so do expect to get called out on it. Further, that was just the most glaring issue, as I said; the fact you seem to serious believe Breitbart is a Fascist and/or NatSoc publication shows you don't even know the first thing about either ideology represents.

I'm so sorry I do not apply a lot of rigour in carefully identifying fascists according to a fascist's standards.

Also, Nazism was a fascist movement, even with its unique elements. Also, I didn't call Breitbart a Nazi publication, even if they've pandered to neo-Nazis. And perhaps calling it fascist is a bit inaccurate, depending on what definitions of fascism we're operating under. Maybe they are just a "libertarian" white supremacist publication. If that's the case, I'm sorry for conflating their garbage ideology with yours.

Here's the thing, though: I ultimately don't give that much of a crap. We're not talking about the historical Italian fascists or the historical German Nazis. We're talking about their spiritual successors today, and that makes terms fairly malleable. As far as I'm concerned, Breitbart is far right and, given who they've associated themselves with and how they've operated over the years, I feel quite comfortable placing them under the umbrella of the garbage ideologies of the far right and not tying myself into nots trying to determine which specific variant of garbage ideologies they'd identify as.

And don't worry; I apply the same thinking to portions of the left-wing.

[Liriena]

Just out of curiosity, are you responding to my post as is or in context?

Also... I "like to wheel out the fallacies"? Since when?

Mostly in context. But I'm catching up on the thread so I'll elaborate when I can.

I mean, maybe my wording lends itself to other intrepretations and I should have been clearer.

Anyway, it all started when I said that Damore had been a guest in far right channels, which he had been. Costa Fierro argued that I was too "far left" to distinguish who was far right and who wasn't. In response, I clarified that, for instance, he had done and interview with Stefan Molyneux, who I sincerely consider to be far right. I would like to think there's enough evidence at hand for that to not be considered a delusional conclusion... but apparently him being a genocide denier who peddled race and IQ nonsense wasn't quite enough.

Also, the second part, about wheeling out the fallacies was supposed to be a compliment from someone who tries (and sometimes fails) to use logical reasoning.

Honestly, I generally try to avoid falling down the pointing-out-fallacious rabbit hole unless it's really blatant and disruptive.

[Oil exporting People]

I'm so sorry I do not apply a lot of rigour in carefully identifying fascists according to a fascist's standards.

The problem is this is not Fascist standards, it's literally about the textbook definition; Breitbart has never advocated for Corporatist economics and is blatantly Philo-Semitic for example.

Also, Nazism was a fascist movement, even with its unique elements. Also, I didn't call Breitbart a Nazi publication, even if they've pandered to neo-Nazis. And perhaps calling it fascist is a bit inaccurate, depending on what definitions of fascism we're operating under. Maybe they are just a "libertarian" white supremacist publication. If that's the case, I'm sorry for conflating their garbage ideology with yours.

Indeed Nazism is indeed a Fascist movement, just was pointing out there is enough differences one should so flippantly call it both; if you prefer, simple call it an Ethno-Nationalist paper. As for what kinda of Fascism, well they're really is just one kind, with some minor differences in light of national differences, sans things like Falangism or getting into things like NatSoc, Strasserism, etc..

Here's the thing, though: I ultimately don't give that much of a crap. We're not talking about the historical Italian fascists or the historical German Nazis. We're talking about their spiritual successors today, and that makes terms fairly malleable. As far as I'm concerned, Breitbart is far right and, given who they've associated themselves with and how they've operated over the years, I feel quite comfortable placing them under the umbrella of the garbage ideologies of the far right and not tying myself into nots trying to determine which specific variant of garbage ideologies they'd identify as.

Not really, given what I outlined earlier about them lack any real basis in either the Fascist or NatSoc school of thought. I do understand the confusion though, because of their clear association with the Alt-Lite types and such. For what it's worth, "we" certainly don't claim them.

And don't worry; I apply the same thinking to portions of the left-wing.

It's fine, it just gets annoying seeing it used so flippantly. I personally try to avoid the cringe inducing arguments that compare modern Liberals with Socialists, for example.

[Senkaku]

So in what way is Google actually emulating the world of 1984?

I'm not seeing anyone being maliciously unpersoned, nor am I seeing language being rewritten to expunge concepts like freedom or rebellion.

Modern young conservatives believe that if a private organization has a policy of not want anything to do with them, then they are suddenly jackbooted Government agents coming to silence them and infringing on their freedom.

In other words, literally the opposite of Orwellian as it is private entities exercising freedom of association and speech by deciding they do not want to give a platform to ideologies they disagree with. And young people whom ascribe to said ideology demand that said private entities be forced to provide a platform to them, in a hilariously ironic turn.

In other words, people who have no damn clue what Orwellian means are referring to things that have nothing to do with Orwellian as being Orwellian.

^rt

blatantly Philo-Semitic for example.

Fascism doesn't have to be anti-Semitic, and you can be anti-Semitic and pro-Israel (Breitbart's coverage would be a fucking example lol, usually "Philo-Semitic" sites aren't well-known for their headlines about a "Renegade Jew" lmao)

And don't worry; I apply the same thinking to portions of the left-wing.

It's fine, it just gets annoying seeing it used so flippantly. I personally try to avoid the cringe inducing arguments that compare modern Liberals with Socialists, for example.

I mean, if modern liberals were actually pushing stuff with an unironic ideological basis in Marxism-Leninism and the Soviet Union or planned economies or whatever, then I would be okay with calling it socialism. When people push shit actually based off Nazi or fascist ideologies and import their ideological tenets with some slight retooling, I think it's fair to call it like it is.

[Shikihara]

I'm so sorry I do not apply a lot of rigour in carefully identifying fascists according to a fascist's standards.

The problem is this is not Fascist standards, it's literally about the textbook definition; Breitbart has never advocated for Corporatist economics and is blatantly Philo-Semitic for example.

Economics has always been secondary to Fascist movements, who were more focused on national rejuvenation rather than an economic plan.

How is Philo-Semitism a sign of them not being fascist?

[Senkaku]

Leave it to a fascist to be pedantic about whether Nazism is fascist.

You're the one who is flippantly using the terms, so do expect to get called out on it. Further, that was just the most glaring issue, as I said; the fact you seem to seriously believe Breitbart is a Fascist and/or NatSoc publication shows you don't even know the first thing about either ideology represents.

Frankly, it seems like Liri hit it spot on- you do seem to get ticked off whenever someone points out that your political beliefs are essentially just co-opting various parts of the failed fascist ideologies (whether it be Nazism, Italian Fascism, Franquismo, or Japanese militarism) that landed on the ash heap of history nearly 75 years ago after devastating the world.

[Oil exporting People]

Fascism doesn't have to be anti-Semitic

It was a defining feature of essentially all Fascist regimes, sans Italy prior to 1938, and that can largely chalked up to the fact their Jewish population was extremely low. I could go into further detail on this, but I'd rather not completely threadjack this into a debate on the finer points of Fascist doctrine.

and you can be anti-Semitic and pro-Israel (Breitbart's coverage would be a fucking example lol, usually "Philo-Semitic" sites aren't well-known for their headlines about a "Renegade Jew" lmao)

The cognitive dissonance displayed here is astounding.

[Petrasylvania]

The problem is this is not Fascist standards, it's literally about the textbook definition; Breitbart has never advocated for Corporatist economics and is blatantly Philo-Semitic for example.

Economics has always been secondary to Fascist movements, who were more focused on national rejuvenation rather than an economic plan.

How is Philo-Semitism a sign of them not being fascist?

Evangelicals are semitiphiles in as much they pray that Israel gets blown up to send the Bat Signal to Jesus for the Second Coming.

[Oil exporting People]

Economics has always been secondary to Fascist movements, who were more focused on national rejuvenation rather than an economic plan. How is Philo-Semitism a sign of them not being fascist?

Frankly, it seems like Liri hit it spot on- you do seem to get ticked off whenever someone points out that your political beliefs are essentially just co-opting various parts of the failed fascist ideologies (whether it be Nazism, Italian Fascism, Franquismo, or Japanese militarism) that landed on the ash heap of history nearly 75 years ago after devastating the world.

If either of you'd like to start a specific thread for this, I'd be happy to continue this there, but we're getting dangerously close to a threadjack at this point.

[Shikihara]

and that can largely chalked up to the fact there Jewish population was extremely low.

And the fact that Fascism had Jewish supporters, owed much of it's origins to a Jewish woman, and had it's principle ideologue condemn racism and Anti-Semitism. Are we supposed to believe that Balbo, Gentile, Sarfatti, and other leading members of the Fascist Party weren't actually Fascist? Mosley was not Anti-Semitic either and the British Union of Fascists initially had a lot of Jewish supporters.

I could go into further detail on this, but I'd rather not completely threadjack this into a debate on the finer points of Fascist doctrine.

The only "finer points" of Fascist doctrine has to do with Gentile's Neo-Hegelianism which was implicitly anti-racist. Everything else is discredited pseudo-racism and spiritualist rhetoric plagiarized from Evola.

[Kavagrad]

Way to fight the strawman, but unfortunately I never said anything about camps, or about "anyone that disagrees" with me. Come up with an argument that is at least based on what I actually said, or don't bother responding at all.

That is what you said though. It may not have been in words, but that's your intent.

Nope. You're wrong. That's not what I was implying in the slightest, nor is it representative of my beliefs. Now, as I said before:

Come up with an argument that is at least based on what I actually said, or don't bother responding at all.

[Hirota]

Plenty implies we have enough of them, and I suspect you don't believe that's the case. I don't.

It's off topic, so...

I don't really want to elaborate and turn this into (as the artist formerly known as Gauther would probably put it) "another fem-nazi bashing thread."

I think of "plenty" as a conference room full. Quite a lot and you can make meaningful differences with that many people, but when you put it into a stadium full of angry rabid supporters it suddenly doesn't look that impressive.

I mean, maybe my wording lends itself to other intrepretations and I should have been clearer.

Anyway, it all started when I said that Damore had been a guest in far right channels, which he had been. Costa Fierro argued that I was too "far left" to distinguish who was far right and who wasn't. In response, I clarified that, for instance, he had done and interview with Stefan Molyneux, who I sincerely consider to be far right. I would like to think there's enough evidence at hand for that to not be considered a delusional conclusion... but apparently him being a genocide denier who peddled race and IQ nonsense wasn't quite enough.

See, for a while here I thought you were calling Damore a genocide denier, but reading through your previous posts (to see if you provided evidence for that) it appears you are referring to Molyneux.

Fine, I don't particularly care if it's true or not, but for sake of argument let's accept that Molyneux is a genocide denier. That's not illegal in and of itself in most countries (probably a good thing for the Armenian genocide and Holomdor deniers on here as well as alleged holocaust deniers like Molyneux). But you are trying to imply that because Damore spoke to Molyneux, and because Molyneux is a genocide denier, that somehow taints by association Damore.

Lets take that thought process and demonstrate how daft it is.

Pol Pot, the Cambodian Maoist revolutionary, was against religion, and he was a very bad man. Frankie is against religion; therefore, Frankie also must be a very bad man.

Harvey Weinstein is an American film executive producer, and is a very bad person. Steven Spielberg is an American film executive producer; therefore Steven Spielberg is a very bad person. Oprah Winfrey is an American film executive producer; therefore Oprah is a very bad person.

All absurd examples, but all following the same fallacious line of reasoning.

That's why you were being called out on your reliance on this guilt by association fallacy. Just because person A interacted with person B who has some views you and I might find distasteful does not mean person A has any commonality with such views.

So why would Damore speak to someone as distasteful as Molyneux? That's fairly obvious. Here we have someone being unfairly lambasted in the media (as you accepted), yet largely being denied the right to reply. When in that situation, when forced to adopt almost siege-like mentality, many people are going to be inclined to get help from wherever they can get it. When we are at a stage where society is addicted to trial by media, doesn't it make sense that someone might seek to tell their side through the media?

[Proctopeo]

No, "black bloc" is a method. Antifa is a group, albeit an incredibly disorganized one.

You are half-wrong.

Black bloc is a method within the wider realm of what antifa action is. Antifa is pretty much anything you do to oppose fascism (and maybe the police state). That includes black bloc tactics to disrupt far right rallies, but it can also include doxxing fascists, infiltrating their organizations, protecting people from fascists, or maybe just doing something nice like giving food and housing to the homeless.

Evidently you don't know what you're talking about, so I'll just let this be. Alright?

[Snowman]

To interrupt conversation:

I don't like Damore as he is condescending to religion & lied about having a PhD. However, the memo isn't anything too bad. Also when he says woman are more likely to delay progress because they have higher uncertainty on average, he is also dissing men. Men, therefore, are more likely to submit mistakes before checking back with people. Turns out having different hormones coursing through your body changes your chemistry, who knew?(someone with a master's in biology called Damore knew)

Also, I don't think he should have been fired. I have a lot of discussion about affirmative action & racial preference to minorities, but he wasn't doing anything bad to pointing this out. As a private company in America, Google has to do whatever the government says, as shown in the 135k charged to the couple who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. The government has final say in all private company business. Google can not fire someone unless he did something worse than the memo.

Feel free to proceed with the Antifa/Neonazi discussion, & to be fair when people say antifa, assume they mean the people in black at violent rallies. Most of America is against Facism, but I don't go around calling all my friends antifacists.

[Great Lakes Municipalities]

Cry me a river. Glad he was fired. Sounds like a whiny manbaby just like the rest of the alt-right

[Old Tyrannia]

Cry me a river. Glad he was fired. Sounds like a whiny manbaby just like the rest of the alt-right

Great Lakes Municipalities: *** Warned for "all X are Y" trolling. *** Try brushing up on the site rules.

[Cekoviu]

Fascism doesn't have to be anti-Semitic

It was a defining feature of essentially all Fascist regimes, sans Italy prior to 1938, and that can largely chalked up to the fact their Jewish population was extremely low. I could go into further detail on this, but I'd rather not completely threadjack this into a debate on the finer points of Fascist doctrine.

and you can be anti-Semitic and pro-Israel (Breitbart's coverage would be a fucking example lol, usually "Philo-Semitic" sites aren't well-known for their headlines about a "Renegade Jew" lmao)

The cognitive dissonance displayed here is astounding.

Think about it. If somebody hates Jews and supports ethnostates, they'll either want to kill Jews or send them off to their own ethnostate, so Israel is a great place for that.

[Tmutarakhan]

businesses are not supposed to fire their employees for their political views anyway

Political beliefs are not a protected characteristic in any state's anti-discrimination laws. Businesses can fire their employees for political views anytime they like.

[Great Lakes Municipalities]

Cry me a river. Glad he was fired. Sounds like a whiny manbaby just like the rest of the alt-right

Great Lakes Municipalities: *** Warned for "all X are Y" trolling. *** Try brushing up on the site rules.

Okay, so if I said "like many in the alt-right" instead, would that have been better?