They do worse than get into scuffles at rallies. They make unprovoked attacks on people simply because they were there. Or have you already forgotten about the cancelled Yiannpolous talk in Berkeley? Antifa are thugs LARPing as freedom fighters. Why shouldn't I be against them?
Also, I'd like you to explain why you think the memo is "sexist" and "anti-science", preferably with direct quotes from it.
Because fishing for and cherry picking data to support your conclusion is precisely the opposite of science. When you start with this statement.
"When it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence."
And then thrash around looking for anything to back it up you're doing political advocacy, not science. It's the opposite of science. The scientific method gathers evidence, develops a hypothesis based on said evidence and only then starts talking about a theory. The google manifesto started with butthurt, tried to bolster the butthurt with bullet points of cherry picked statistics and then declared butthurt to be so, that's the fucking precise opposite of science.
Google guy is pretending to be the guy on the left when in fact he's the guy on the right, start with a contentious conclusion and bolster it with a bunch of sciency words is not fucking science!
Okay, first thing's first, that's a pretty serious accusation. Do you have anything to back it up? Because like I said earlier, anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And I'll be looking at it, especially considering that some of the evidence you've cited in the past has been... wanting.
And unlike you, I have an example. Remember when you cited
this? Well, the conclusions the study drew were based on interviews with
73 male college students, all of whom went to the same university in North Dakota. The small size alone means that there's a margin of sampling error of about +11.5%. In other words, it shouldn't be taken seriously.
Besides, I'd say that what he said was validated by his public shaming and subsequent firing. You can dress it up however you choose, but the fact remains: he accused Google of being a politically correct monoculture, and got fired for questioning the prevailing orthodoxy. If Google intended to prove him wrong by doing this, they only made themselves look worse. It's the equivalent of responding to being called violent by punching the accuser in the face.
Thanks for the link, by the way. It taught me two valuable things. First, that Gizmodo hires the most brazen liars since Gaddafi's propagandists. The article calls it an "anti-diversity screed", when one of the memo's headers is "Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap". You don't need to be Phoenix Wright to spot the contradiction.
The second is that comments sections can provide intellectually stimulating discussion, even on the laziest, most dishonest articles. I quite enjoyed reading them, so again, thanks for the link.
Direct question: how much of the memo did you actually read?
And I still can't muster any sympathy for those who wear a swastika, or a MAGA hat for that matter. Both stand for the politics of white racial supremacy but I guess, sure - you shouldn't launch uprovoked attacks on racist fuckholes not because it makes you look bad but because unprovoked attacks bad m'kay? Not gonna lose any sleep when it happens though.
Calling a MAGA hat equivalent to Nazi symbolism. Wow. You're really not helping your case.
Bottom line, ANTIFA's stated historical reason for existence, that you can't rely on the state to stop Nazis, was bourne out in Berkely, where the cops disarmed Antifa but not the right wing thugs LARPing as freedom fighters and in Charlottsville, where Heather Heyer was killed and that African American fella was thumped with poles by Nazis mere yards a police station, the cops just sorta hung back.
If the cops cannot be bothered defending a synagogue from crowds yelling "jews will not replace us" then the good police officers of Charlottsville are essentially advertising for Antifa. You don't want an out of control anti far right counterinsurgency? Get your fucking police to do their damn jobs!
Were those claims borne out? I don't think so, at least not to the extent you claim.
First, let's look at Berkeley. Again, we seem to be encountering the problem of you not reading your own sources. Rich Black seems to be claiming that Antifa were already attacking by the time the police disarmed them:
However, if it were not for the Police immediately disarming the first wave of Antifa, whom were in a full charge against us, the event would have been shut down before it began and would have resulted in tremendous blood shed.
If you're going to take him at his word, you better make sure you understand what he's saying. Speaking of which:
As it has been established before and remains an unwavering creed: The LRA does not condone nor promote violence at the events we organize. Careful measures were taken to ensure that, among our invited detail, there were none who appeared to have any desire to engage in physical confrontation. Those who appeared to have an interest in physical confrontation were removed from this detail prior to the event.
As far as Identity Evropa, the Alt-Right and the Sacramento Workers Party who showed up to attend our event: We did not extend an invitation to these particular groups and we had many denouncements in regards to them, prior to this event. When Nathan Damigo arrived I met with him in the center of the park and I told him that because of his affiliations, that his group was not welcome to occupy our space on the stage, and he would not be provided security.
Honestly, it's kind of hypocritical for you to accuse Damore of cherry-picking to back up a conclusion he's already decided.
And as for the Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, again, your own article doesn't exactly support your black-and-white view of things:
Perhaps the Charlottesville police had the July experience in mind and opted to take a more hands-off approach this time around. Or perhaps they were just overwhelmed by the larger size of the rally—some 500 neo-Nazis and white supremacists, 10 times larger than the Klan march, plus hundreds of counter-demonstrators. That’s a large crowd anywhere, but it’s especially large for Charlottesville, which has fewer than 50,000 residents and a police department of fewer than 130 officers who don’t typically deal with events this size.
And that's just for starters. Again, if you're going to cite something, make sure to read it all the way through.
I agree that this was a failure for the Charlottesville police. Where I disagree is with the idea that the tragedy happened for ideological reasons, as well as the idea that it reflects a broader reality.
TL;DR Your evidence is lacking and your reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.