I’m usually at least somewhat amenable to the “but the bad actors are mostly just the outliers” position, as well. In most cases, that’s true. Again, however, not here. Anyone who read the manifesto and the “response” post by Zunger while practicing even a nominal amount of epistemological integrity would have immediately recognized that Zunger’s post was wildly dishonest, did not deal directly with the content of the post at all, and apparently even thought that fantasizing violence against the manifesto author was an acceptable way to respond. It wasn’t.
I was and remain extremely disappointed in Bay Area tech culture right now. This “manifesto” —a ridiculous and politically expedient moniker— was a crucial opportunity to have a culture-wide teaching moment and we blew it spectacularly. We could have had a nuanced, intelligent discussion about an extremely personal and difficult topic while also demonstrating to Mr. Damont why his application of the very real, widely accepted science he cited was wrong-headed and possibly even oppressive[1]. But no. We didn’t want to acknowledge the facts at all, and our aversion to doing so was so strong that a witch-hunt was executed instead. Meanwhile, we still seem largely oblivious that we made Mr. Damont’s broader point for him. And for the alt-right. They’re having a field day with this, and it’s all the more infuriating because they’re not wrong this time.
[1] e.g. https://contemporarysex.tumblr.com/post/163876071377/doing-a...
They might think something like this: "The very wealthy people who control a sizable portion of the Internet and hold vast influence in society hate me. They would gladly ruin me even if I gently express a rational and benign version of what I really think."
My point: be very careful about making threats in reaction to benign speech. People might take you seriously.
In the grand scheme of things, being intolerant towards intolerance is certainly on the positive side, but it is still scary seeing the vitriol directed towards whoever is the current target of our internet hate.
You can argue the current anti-intellectual attitude of a large part of the population is a immune reaction to the political power intellectuals had when their opinion was sought by politicians.
You can also argue white supremacism is an immune reaction to what some white populations incorrectly perceive as a threat to their historic prosperity.
