You say I'm lying. Fine. What specific part of my statement can be contradicted by a direct quote from the thing? And to call it hate-filled is ridiculous.

And the memo's author has alternative methods to increase the number of women, he agrees sexism exists and should be fought. He's just against a certain specific set of tactics.

If these people's beliefs accurately reflect the original memo guy's, then it's not "anti-diversity" so much as it is "anti-affirmative action", which is a big distinction. And it just seems like a big leap to assume that in spite of their vocal support of free speech they're secretly against it somewhere else in a…

He doesn't think women having rights is oppressing him. He's explicitly in favor of Google hiring more women, and provides alternative methods, he just doesn't like the specific methodology they have in place now. And he gives a list of traits which may well lead to fewer women pursuing engineering. You can write…

Based on what? The fact that they're not mentioning Snowden in the same paragraph? How many have you polled to see if they also support Snowden, or are you just making an assumption?

If he's telling the truth about Google's hiring initiatives, it's not just "women exist". He has a whole segment about other ways he supports Google trying to increase the number of women hired, so clearly he has a problem with the methodology more than the actual goal. He accuses Google of doing things like providing…

So being on the fence about things like Affirmative Action and wanting to point out the memo guy didn't write most of the awful things people accuse him of makes me a "concern trolling bigoted fuck"? Quite a leap.

The "he" I'm referring to is the guy who wrote the memo, which this whole thing has been revolving around. And you're calling me a troll based on what, exactly? Defending a guy whose memo it seems very few people actually read, given how many people are just writing outright falsehoods about it?

No, there's no logical way to interpret my statement as pro-Milo. I am saying that you can't lump people in with Milo on the basis of "they also say that they like free speech". Freedom of speech is a pretty popular idea.

So you're arguing he's a pro-censorship advocate based on what, exactly, other than the fact that he argues for free speech? Because to jump to that point based only on that is pretty ridiculous.

I would think that firing an employee for publishing a rant on abortion to a private group would be ridiculous, as long as he doesn't call people monsters or advocate firebombing clinics.

They're not the exact same thing. One's a goal and one's a specific pathway towards it. Like how I can be in favor of welfare for the poor and decreasing wealth inequality, but that doesn't mean I support a plan to steal the rich's watches and hand them to the homeless. And "women magically naturally suck at…

I've seen plenty of people defend whistleblowers and protests, while "journalists are good, cartels murdering them is bad" is just kind of a given.

And the author of the original piece doesn't have anything against hiring like that, just the possibility of preferential treatment. It just seems bizarre to call the document anti-diversity when it has whole segments on ways to increase the number of women in tech.

One way or another, they're going out of their way to hire women, potentially doing so by having gender be something they consider in the hiring process. Opposing that isn't opposing the broader concept of diversity, just a specific pathway to it.

Are they anti-diversity, or just anti-affirmative action? Because the guy's manifesto had a lot of "I don't think Google should go out of its way to boost the ratio of women hired", but I don't remember seeing much of "all women suck, Google should have none".

Is there any indication that these people are against those things, or are you just assuming they're hypocrites with no real evidence?

There are plenty of bands you couldn't say that about. I'm sure there are a ton who want to be more than they are but are held back by technical proficiency.

I mean, pretty much any Blue Rose case is going to look insane on a police report, I assume they've worked out a system.

Counter-counterpoint- the success rate for films they're involved in but didn't direct isn't as great as I'd hope.