Kevin Solway wrote:Russell Parr wrote:This SJW vs alt-right war is merely just the far left vs the far right.
There's a lot more people fighting against the SJWs than the far right. I'm a left-leaning person, and I'm fully against the SJWs. Others, like Jordan Peterson, or the Google memo writer, are centrist.
This may be the case, but I think the tides will turn as Trump's presidency continues, like a seesaw in reaction to which political party holds presidency. As I see it, following the crash of '08 (and to some degree, Bush's presidency), Obama's presidency gave rise to the far left and the SJWs. He gave them a sense of legitimacy, just as Trump will continue to do for the far right and the Nazis (I'd like to change my words a bit: on the extreme left are the SJWs, and on the extreme right are the Nazis. Most of the alt-right are moreso 'regular right-wingers' than they are extremist). Increasing economic pressures make extremism more popular.
Google has serious problems when they are firing their top employees for the crime of speaking the truth. And their policy of hiding information they don't agree with will probably spell the end of Google.
As someone has pointed out, Google may just be trying to satisfy what they perceive to be the needs of the general public. If they believe that the general public are crying out for bullshit and lies, then they see it as their duty to provide it.
It most definitely was a PR move. As Google is a for-profit company, it will do whatever it needs to protect its profits by ensuring its employees have a comfortable place to do their jobs, at the expense of principles if necessary. If they hadn't fired Damore quickly, there would have been Berkeley-esque riots on their campuses for weeks.
_____
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:There's this human tendency to assign a "willful force" or some intent to certain affairs as to worship or to fear.
It is both meaningful and responsible to assign "willful force" somewhere along the causal chain when it comes to human action. I see Google as a passive organization. I think its role and goal is not to assert any particular agenda, but to provide the service of information to assist others in their own agendas. This includes, unfortunately, not just normal businesses looking to reach customers, but also socialists, fascists, and oligarchs looking to spread political ideologies.
In other words, Google, as a company, is feminine in nature. It will bend and mold itself to whims of society. They do this
very well. I predict they will be around for a long, long time.
_____
jupiviv wrote:If they don't ratchet up the liberalism in response to the alt right wave many people will feel betrayed and switch to someone else who does. The usage of their products isn't determined by any actual need. No one will starve to death if they choose to duckduckgo or baidu over google or facebook.
We now live in the information age. I highly doubt there will be any nuclear war, and definitely no more uber-scale long term wars like the World Wars, because they can only be sustained upon public ignorance. The oligarchs' grip on public outlook is more fragile now than it has ever been.
On top of all that, things are getting better overall worldwide. See
this and watch this
Hans Rosling video if you'd like.
The biggest threat to humans in the future might be, as
Elon Musk put it, artificial intelligence.
_____
JohnJAu wrote:Do you really think that women are treated as second-class citizens? That seems to be out of touch with the facts. From every statistic that I've seen and my own anecdotal evidence it seems that the average middle/lower class woman in western countries like America and Australia is far more privileged than the average middle/lower class man.
This is all true in a sense, but what also remains true, and perhaps always will, is that men treat women with a protectionist attitude that inhibits their ability to become wise and truly independent. But of course, what will perhaps always remain true as well, is that women play into this because it is the most pleasurable and least difficult way to live.
_____
Santiago Odo wrote:I would suggest that if it can be made to seem as you say, that it will happen that both of those extremes can be successfully resisted and defeated. And what will be left? The present structure. And what is the present structure? The answer to that question will determine where one sits, politically and in many different areas, and will tell exactly who one is, what they desire, et cetera.
Yes of course, take away extremism and the current system will be better off for it. But even then, the government is way too big and powerful. As is, it provides large scale consequences for if and when corruption infests it.
I think that your statement is wrong for a number of reasons. [snip]
And I think you're stuck in the past! Your historical examples can only apply to current times in limited degrees. History certainly rhymes, but it doesn't necessarily repeat.