google

The Voluntary Exchange Podcast: The United States of Hysteria

hqdefault

In this episode I let my emotions get the best of me. The reaction to Google firing, Trump being blamed for North Korea and my divorce with Facebook are the topics of the week. The anti-intellectual wave on all sides of the political spectrum has created an environment where anyone that wants to have more than a surface discussion about a topic would rather walk away from such opportunities. I have come to that point. In this episode I lay out my frustration with the inability to “get through” to people, and my new tactics moving forward.

Find the episode here and on ITunes. The full podcast page can be foundĀ here.

Google Firing: The Reaction is the Story

groupthink

As I write this, I’m listening to an interview being carried out by Jordan Peterson with James Damore, the recent Google employee who was fired after posting a 10 page internal memo at Google, stating is issues with the “echo chamber” of ideology at company.

Why Damore was fired is interesting. It wasn’t fired for posting an internal memo criticizing the business practices of the company he works for, which I would actually see as a firing offense and wouldn’t have much problem with it. He was fired for “promoting gender stereotypes”.

This is where it gets frustrating for me. So really, Google just fired a guy for “social brownie points”. I say that simply because the memo isn’t that radical. I’m not an expert on psychology or gender, but Dr. Peterson is. When you’re listening to a Jedi Master of these subjects go through the full memo and point out that the SCIENCE Damore uses to make his points is sound as fuck, the normal reaction for any person using logic and trying to come to a rational conclusion leans towards the view that Google overrated.

This has not been the case for most of the people or media outlets I’ve read discussing the subject. They are all quick to denounce Damore, calling him a “bigot”, “misogynist”, and of course, “racist”. He is simply a white male with “conservative” views. He should be silenced and cast out. Why? Because his memo hurt feelings. It hurt feelings of individuals who do not wish to discuss an issue, or even research it. They refuse to acknowledge another side of an argument, denying facts and truth along the way.

The problem with this is they are winning. The silence majority is speaking out more, but this minority of ultra-PC progressives are winning. They are in high positions in media, business, government and culture. This trickles down to the everyday American, who just wants to “fit in” and be invited to the next bar crawl. They don’t want to be the annoying loser that wants to have real dialog about a subject. Usually a subject brought up at the bar by someone else, who makes a quick comment that is greeted with nods from everyone around them. Again, fitting in is important. I don’t dispute that. But who are you fitting in with? Where is it appropriate to think for yourself? I personally think that is all the time, but groupthink and acceptance are powerful drugs.

As this story unfolds, we see that the author actually had more support for opening up this discussion than was originally reported. Of course this is the case. The speed at which he was denounced is also not a shock.

I don’t see myself as a very conservative person. I just happen to also not be surface oriented person either. In terms of these political/social issues, I continually find myself on the opposite side of thing than most of the people in my life. Maybe not even on the other side of the debate, but distanced from them in the way I react. The blind emotion and shunning of any viewpoint outside the dogma is scary to see. As someone who fears groupthink because of my libertarian principles in general, reactions to stories like this continue to baffle me.

EDIT: I’d also like to add the denial of science here, and the hypocrisy of the same group who screams at anyone that doesn’t believe that Climate Change is “settled science”. Seems like a new thing in 2017, selective use of science as a basis of your argument….