Why is this man now being classified as ”alt-right”? It seems to me he's 'just' sexist, I haven't really seen any indication regarding his political beliefs in general, certainly nothing along the lines of the unthinking intolerance towards minorities, anti-immigration stance, subscription to weird conspiracy theories, and white supremacy that need to be broadly satisfied in order to reliably define somebody as being alt-right. (Yes, it will be argued that sexism correlates with other forms of discrimination, but what is roughly true on average is not necessarily true in every particular case.) Just tarring him with the label of being "alt-right" as a manner of shouting him down seems very lax, particularly when he can be countered with far more compelling arguments.
> Why is this man now being classified as ”alt-right”?
(1) Sexism is an integral part of alt-right movement. Most alt-right communities are anti-women as well. (e.g. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-...) (2) This man has identified himself as an "alt-right" icon by continuously featuring on shows of every despicable alt-right outlet (refer to his twitter account, multiple interviews, etc.).
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Any real scientist knows that all "peer reviewed research" are not equal, there can be very low quality research. Almost in all "citations", he made a jump from a small experimental study to women in STEM field (or, maybe he simply copied the points of prominent alt-right figures). See this https://www.wired.com/story/the-pernicious-science-of-james-... And there are many "debunkings" like this.
There are also many articles backing up his cited research, the consensus from the articles I've read indicate two of the factors were very strongly correlated and others were very debatable. He did jump to conclusions, but that does not mean he is sexist.
I refuse to indulge the fallacy by which an element that exhibits one necessary but insufficient characteristic for membership in a set is nonetheless classified as being definitely a member of that set. He has posited views that certainly reek of sexism. He has appeared on the outlets that are also faux-sensitive to these issues. He is not, however, by virtue of these aspects necessarily an alt-right fanatic.
That is an utterly preposterous bit of interviewing, the interviewer (Milo) literally leads him on the whole way and biases the whole discourse to the point of being essentially a monologue. (Only watched the first five minutes or so but that was quite enough.)
Still, being interviewed and led on by an interviewer that wishes to convey a very definite message and is willing to indulge in the most naked forms of pretesti get does not sell me on the idea that the author of the memo is himself satisfies all the criteria for being called "alt-right".
EDIT> Dear Christ what utter tosh that is. I was pained watching it. Ugh.
9 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 34.8 ms ] thread(1) Sexism is an integral part of alt-right movement. Most alt-right communities are anti-women as well. (e.g. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dissecting-trumps-most-...) (2) This man has identified himself as an "alt-right" icon by continuously featuring on shows of every despicable alt-right outlet (refer to his twitter account, multiple interviews, etc.).
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2J5E8sSdsI
Most recently, Milo had posted images of several Google employees who were gay, lesbian, or transgender.
Still, being interviewed and led on by an interviewer that wishes to convey a very definite message and is willing to indulge in the most naked forms of pretesti get does not sell me on the idea that the author of the memo is himself satisfies all the criteria for being called "alt-right".
EDIT> Dear Christ what utter tosh that is. I was pained watching it. Ugh.