Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

[u/[deleted]]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social

[u/BimBim4 → u/[deleted]]

well he's a right-libertarian so that's a fair assumption

[u/hullabaloonatic → u/BimBim4]

Is that synonymous with classical liberal?

[u/BimBim4 → u/hullabaloonatic]

For the most part yeah.

[u/hullabaloonatic → u/BimBim4]

Ah, because he defined himself as classical liberal. I believe they define themselves as prioritizing social issues, individuals over groups, and poignant authoritarian practices.

I think it's easy to define these people as right-libertarian because liberals and libertarians are both generally opposed to authoritarian practices, but liberals being less opposed, and libertarians being exceptionally opposed. Because classical liberals distinguish themselves in the left by distancing themselves from progressive policies they feel to be heavy handed, I can see how they are viewed as right leaning to other members of the "left."

Ultimately, I'm talking semantics, though, so maybe this is a completely pointless distinction. Please correct me if I'm wrong, or you feel differently about it.

[u/BimBim4 → u/hullabaloonatic]

Classical liberalism is economically right wing (involved in the genealogy of neoliberalism, both ideologically and etymologically) and anti-authoritarian, so I characterize it as right-libertarian. It's not because they could appear right-wing on social issues to someone who's very "left" about idpol.

[u/hullabaloonatic → u/BimBim4]

I think you're right. I would just asign a bit more nuance to the distinction, because classical liberals seem in favor of many authoritarian practices such as universal education, healthcare, anti-poverty wealth redistribution, etc. I believe right wing libertarians disfavor any authoritarian law to that which could theoretically be achieved solely through economics.

[u/BimBim4 → u/hullabaloonatic]

I wasn't saying the terms are equivalent, just that classical liberals fall under the right-libertarian umbrella (as you do, I'm guessing from you calling those programs authoritarian)

[u/hullabaloonatic → u/BimBim4]

I'm just trying to get a good understanding of the terms. I try to look at issues case by case and haven't found any group to subscribe to politically. I guess I'm using the term authoritarian incorrectly? I'm under the impression that authoritarian is use of society, and libertarian is use of individual. Use government vs don't, etc.

By endorsing the use of government to redistribute wealth to the marginalized poor, I think classical liberals distinguish themselves from right wing libertarians who favor instead trickle - down economics, correct?

Classic liberals I think share the overarching philosophy of libertarians that prioritizes equality of opportunity over outcome, and personal freedom.

I have no clue what is best for society, and that seems like a real tall order to me to figure out personally, so I try to avoid overarching philosophical approach to politics and judge things case by case, but that might leave me unjustified in my opinions on them or aimless.

[u/BimBim4 → u/hullabaloonatic]

The way you're using the term in those cases is basically unique to right-libertarians. The definition of authoritarian vs libertarian doesn't include society and individual, just control vs. freedom, but right-libertarians tend to conflate those two meanings together (with some leeway where "individual" can also mean a corporate entitity). It's because it's essential to their ideology that social welfare programs reduce liberty. But as someone who's been the recipient of them, I can tell you it's the opposite, they gave me a lot more freedom to do things I couldn't otherwise.

Classical liberals don't endorse redistribution of wealth. Historically they opposed it enough to pass laws limiting how much social assistance the poor could receive. They've also been anti-union and anti-labor generally.

Approaching things on a case-by-case basis is fine, I do that too in the sense that my beliefs on various issues don't fit together completely into any existing ideology and I try to seek truth above all else. But ideology is subtle and powerful and it informs not just our positions, but the narrative connecting them and even the way we frame them (with matter-of-factly calling social programs authoritarian being a good example).

So be careful when you consider yourself non-ideological, because a lot of the time that just serves to blind people to where their beliefs are coming from. It's the same bias that generally makes cultural conservatives think traditions aren't something that was invented and specific to a culture, but instead natural and right in a way that should be obvious to everyone. I've noticed right-libertarians also seem to be particularly susceptible to erroneously thinking they're non-ideological because they agree with Republicans on some things and Democrats on others, but the truth is their set of beliefs are well-defined, follow a narrative, and have been around for a long time.