I know many people comment on any topic second hand, but I read what he wrote and I’m quite familiar with the meaning.
It’s the same as when people protest building housing: “oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood”. I know what they are really talking about, and I know full well what he was talking about — he was making the same argument, in the same terms, as plenty have before him. I assume he read those arguments before, himself.
Is it possible to make an argument to those ends without being accused of being a racist/sexist/etc in your mind? Is there any way that someone could convince you that they were sincere?
> oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood
Is there no situation where this is obviously, trivially true? If someone wants to replace a traditional cottage in the middle of an Irish village with a glass and steel modernist masterpiece, would you accept the argument then?
Probably not; I suspect that gumby would say that the position is inherently sexist, no matter how sincerely held.
I read the memo as sincerely asking whether the data showed a sexist conclusion. Either it is inherently sexist to ask the question, or it isn't. If it is, then... what? Is it inherently sexist to note that men are faster than women? (Yes, I am aware that there are 12-year-old girls who can beat me in the 100 meters. No, that doesn't invalidate my point.) Then is reality sexist? Or is it only sexist to notice? Or to admit that you noticed?
If it isn't inherently sexist to ask the question, then we start into judgment on whether he asked it in good faith. That's a different question, on which I will not pass judgment. But I suspect that what's happening is that people have decided that it is sexist to ask the question, and therefore he couldn't have asked it in good faith.
I agree that many people seem to find asking a question in the first place to be inherently * ist. Personally, I think that by refusing to ask questions we make it impossible to find better solutions and leave openings for other belief systems to thrive. (If the only people explaining a difference are the Nazis because everyone else says there's no difference, well then anyone who goes looking for the cause is going to find what the Nazis what you to find. Easier to twist a narrative when you don't have any competition)
I think to some degree what is being argued is that a genuinely sincere concern along this line relies on assumptions perpetuate social inequality and continued oppression of humans. It is similar to a constant suspicion of men around children perpetuates continued discomfort of men to be strong, loving, present father figures to their children whom they genuinely care for, and from this a concern based on assumptions harms the family structure overall.
Perhaps - but if every time that someone argues in an unapproved direction they're called a * ist, it's irritating to tell the difference between someone genuinely trying to help and Richard Spencer.
And anything that says * ism might be a smaller problem than thought, that * ism is getting better, or that our current efforts to reduce * ism are ineffective... Well, that's an unapproved direction.
Also, if I know there's no way to convince someone of something, I'm generally going to stop caring about what they think. (Because it's always going to be the same, and nothing I can do will change that)
I agree but I simultaneously find this rhetoric difficult because it also means that people who are actively being targets of bigotry cannot respond to bigoted assumptions with any amount of anger or calling out. It in some ways perpetuates that assumption I mentioned that continues systems of inequality continuing- people who are being delivered unjust outcomes may not even respond in the way a privileged human would if they were forced under the same conditions.
Right after the (somewhat-carefully-worded) memo was punished, the author showed his hand by appearing as a guest on the YouTube show of Stefan Molyneux who, even then, was well-known for his white nationalism and "men's rights" activism.
I actually watched that interview and he just said the same thing he said in the memo. Damore went on a lot of alternative media platforms such as Joe Rogan.
In any case your underlying argument is really bizarre.
If I wrote a long memo about how there are too many immigrants in America, and afterwards accepted an interview request from VDare, people would be right to wonder whether my private views were a little more racist than the memo let on.
It's racist to assume that someone is an immigrant because of their appearance. It's not racist to say that you think rates of immigration are too high. You can oppose immigration but have nothing but delight for the diversity of culture across the planet. A xenophilic restrictionist, as Eric Weinstein describes it.
In fact extreme xenophilic restrictionism is the norm in Japan. There's almost universal support by the Japanese people for their extremely restrictive immigration policy—probably the most restrictive first world country. But no sane person could call the Japanese people racist. They love other cultures—no, they adore them. They are incredibly welcoming to tourists from across the planet and delight in the sharing of culture.
>There's almost universal support by the Japanese people for their extremely restrictive immigration policy
Can you point to some statistics on that, please?
>probably the most restrictive first world country
If you can get hired by a Japanese company (and some do accept applications from overseas), they will sponsor your work visa. There's none of this H1-B style nonsense. After you're in Japan, if you've been there continuously for five years (which, mind you, is a smaller period of time than any country I can name OTOH), you can apply for citizenship, and again as far as I know, it's not a ridiculous waiting list/lottery style process. In what way is this nearly as restrictve as you're saying?
It's also not difficult at all to get into Japan by applying to an English teaching company (eikaiwa or ALT jobs) from overseas (where they recruit from), and all you need is any Bachelor's degree. You'll have a valid work visa and you can be shipped out within months. Try doing the same as a Japanese teacher applying to teach in the US (or many other countries, for that matter). Browse tech job listings for Japanese companies on major job boards in the West. Almost all of them note that they'll be happy to sponsor your work visa.
This game of prettying up the language to make it seem nice and friendly, while maintaining the otherness that daily affects people (groups which the other reply to you here has pointed out) with language like "xenophilic restrictionist" does nobody favours.
And if there is support for such policies, and in particular bent on nihonjinron notions and race perceptions, I must be insane, but I'm going to go ahead and call "the Japanese people" racist. Being "incredibly welcoming to tourists" doesn't mean anything if you want to work and live there. It misses the whole point of the discussion, and waves away systemic issues with a gloss of "they're good to tourists". We're not talking about tourists. I don't care how much they are able to enjoy Western comedians. I care how receptive they are to people integrating and living in their society like everyone else, as the Japanese constitution guarantees should be possible.
At the risk of stirring the pot a little (and only because I couldn't think of a better analogy), you may as well say no country has race problems, because after all, members of the majority race might frequently listen to music by, and watch films featuring, the minority race. That doesn't mean anything in terms of how the minority race is treated, and it's a farcically ignorant point to make. So sorry if I see the same sort of logic in nebulous feelgood terms like "xenophilic restrictionism".
I don't think anyone really considers the memo itself to be a scientific fact. The scientific papers cited and arguments contained therein people might take as scientific facts.
It was a pretty scientific memo. It cited a lot of scientific research.
The sort of people who argue against his memo always end up looking foolish because they never argue against anything that was actually said. No specific claims are ever brought up except lying strawmen like "he said women can't program", a claim not found in the memo.
Instead it's all just slurs, insults, attacks on his character, guilt-by-association and so on. There's never any actual depth to it, it's all "don't look at the bad man".
Damore's arguments must be good, because in years of this coming up nobody has ever once managed to make an intellectual argument against the stuff in his memo.
It’s the same as when people protest building housing: “oh it will not align with the character of our neighborhood”. I know what they are really talking about, and I know full well what he was talking about — he was making the same argument, in the same terms, as plenty have before him. I assume he read those arguments before, himself.