So you disagree with his analysis. That's OK. I think you're wrong, but reasonably people can disagree.
What's not OK is simply dismissing and ignoring his analysis, treating it as if it didn't exist, and then misinterpreting the rest based on that.
I'll try to illustrate it for you:
I say "I love books so much that I have my entire apartment covered in bookshelves, with books three levels deep and it's still not enough, books are littering the floor so I can't walk and can't clean up any longer. I think I need to get rid of some books".
So say you disagree with the first part. Say even that you are correct, that I had made some fundamental mistake and there were actually bookshelves I hadn't considered and if I only cleaned up and used them I wouldn't need to get rid of any books. Is it then OK to just remove that first part, only cite "I think I need to get rid of some books" and then conclude that I must hate books because I want to get rid of them? I think not.
(And no, he didn't argue that he wanted to get rid of anyone, just to clip that potential willful misinterpretation)
This is not a disagreement on analysis, but on axioms.
One of the axioms of free society is one of fairness and equality.
Any argument that suggests a treatment should be applied to group X, but not to group Y, is therefore automatically invalid.
Any argument that suggests that a group should be treated differently because of a group tendency is automatically invalid.
Anyone who disagrees with this disagrees with the most fundamental axioms of modern society. Yes, I realize there is an ongoing revolution happening of people that feel that this axiom is wrong, and they should get an advantage over other groups, but I disagree with that fundamentally.
This is an axiom held even higher than the constitutional rights any country grants, as all those derive from this axiom. The reason so many people are angered by actions of both the left and the right is that they feel that this axiom is being attacked.
> Any argument that suggests a treatment should be applied to group X, but not to group Y, is therefore automatically invalid.
Exactly. So you are 100% in agreement with James.
>Anyone who disagrees with this disagrees with the most fundamental axioms of modern society. Yes, I realize there is an ongoing revolution happening of people that feel that this axiom is wrong, and they should get an advantage over other groups, but I disagree with that fundamentally.
Again, that is exactly what James is saying, and I have quoted him a number of times now whereas you have not provided a single instance of him saying the opposite.
If you think he is not saying that, then what we have is disagreement in analysis.
On a more meta level, you seem to think that because you profess adherence the correct beliefs, the right "Axioms", you are freed from the burdens of proper analysis. I remember that very vividly from my classes at Uni in Germany, for example an essay writing class where a significant number of my fellow students thought that they would be graded on the "correctness" of the opinion they had penned, rather than the quality of the essay. So they handed in essays that were absolutely embarrassing. "Gesinnungsästhetik"
I would suggest the following exercise for you: take an opinion you absolutely disagree with. Then write an essay supporting that idea. Make it as good as you can. Then write another one tearing it up. Then another one tearing that one up.
> Exactly. So you are 100% in agreement with James.
I am? "You need to have conservatives to have a balanced view, hire more of them" (paraphrased from the attract more conservatives part) isn't something I've ever said.
> On a more meta level, you seem to think that because you profess adherence the correct beliefs, the right "Axioms", you are freed from the burdens of proper analysis
False. But I think that if you disagree with society on the base axioms of it, you should leave it.
By your argument, you should be able to rally in the streets and protest for allowing child cannibalism, too.
It's just an opinion, too, nothing wrong with it. If people want it, we should just let them.
No thanks.
There are certain moral axioms a society is based on, if you disagree with them you can leave. (For example, the German constitution has an eternity clause, making some basic axioms of society immutable for eternity)
> conservatives...hire more of them" (paraphrased..
That's not "paraphrased". You just blatantly made that up. What he actually wrote is you should not silence them.
> if you disagree with society on the base axioms of it, you should leave it
So why don't you?
>By your argument, you should be able to rally in the streets and protest for allowing child cannibalism, too
By your logic, you should be able to commit genocide and we should have to applaud you for it.
See, I can also make up shit out of thin air.
>There are certain moral axioms a society is based on
Yes, such as non-discrimation. Which is what he writes:
"treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group "
"Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races."
"Discriminating .. is misguided "
Anyway, stop with your moral outrage based on nothing but yourself. If you see horrible things everywhere, but can't actually show any of them except by "paraphrasing" (i.e. making shit up out of thin air), maybe the problem is with you, not with others.
I'm not the one going against all of society by holding a fringe opinion.
> See, I can also make up shit out of thin air.
I didn't make shit up. You said any possible statement should be discussed logically, there should be no opinion that we should disregard just based on axioms, as that would silence parts of the political spectrum.
> Yes, such as non-discrimation. Which is what he writes:
And yet he says that having conservatives is something that is a value just in itself, and that Google should strive to have more conservatives.
I'm not making shit up out of thin air, that's specifically what he argued.
Or what purpose does the paragraph praising conservatives so overly awesome mental abilities, and he paragraph saying that having people from all political spectrums is a value in itself, serve, if not as a call to action?
He is specifically calling for more conservative employees at Google.
Hell, he specifically called for registering all democrats and conservatives at Google.
Are you seriously that ideologically blinded that you can't see a political discrimination when it's staring you into the eye?
Many people can't visualize this concept, so we can take the political compass as a helpful tool: https://www.politicalcompass.org/images/us2016.png