An interview with John Cleese. So he doesn’t like Trump, but it is still John Cleese.

The comedy legend on Monty Python’s legacy, political correctness, and the funniest joke he ever told.

How can you resist? And as for the interviewer, he is obviously a politically correct nonce which makes his reactions so precious. The first question up: “Is death funny?” All depends on whose death you’re talking about, I suppose, but now find out what Cleese thinks instead. What you do not find out is the funniest joke he thinks he has ever told.

I tried finding James Damore’s memo and it is already three quarters of the way down the memory hole so I thought I’d put it up in case anyone else wanted to read what he wrote. Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber. These are the conclusions.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. ​I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another
member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

● De-moralize diversity.
○ As soon as we start to ​moralize an issue​, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”

● Stop ​alienating conservatives​.
○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to ​stay in the closet to avoid open hostility​. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because ​conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness​, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

● Confront Google’s biases.
○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.

● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
○ Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
○ There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
○ These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
○ I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination. Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.
○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX. De-emphasize empathy.
○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other ​irrational and dangerous biases​. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

● Prioritize intention.
○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.
○ Microaggression training ​incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence​ ​and ​isn’t backed by evidence​. Be open about the science of human nature.
○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems. Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.
○ We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
○ Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
○ Spend more time on the ​many other types of biases​ ​besides stereotypes.
○ Stereotypes are much more ​accurate and responsive to new information​ ​than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

And in case that link goes cold, here is another which comes with Google’s reply via its Diversity Officer. And here is another with the diagrams included.

And here’s another interview.

And here is one more link to the memo.

If you are a Jew of any age anywhere in the world you are a close relation of someone who was murdered because they were Jewish. It’s not a debating point or the premise of some syllogistic argument. It is just a fact. If Jews are reluctant to find anti-semitic statements made in public just part of the give and take in the discourse within a free society, well you might see why that is. The lashing together of free speech arguments with the refusal of Bondi Council to authorise the building of a synagogue because radical Islamists might blow the place up is a very long bow that adds nothing at all to the free speech debate. Changing the law to permit Jews to be subject to racial abuse is not a defence of “human rights”. And if those who would like to see the end of 18C say that it is, it will become a lot harder to defend free speech if no sanctions are available to prevent racial vilification in public of people who have no means to defend themselves.

But that is what Janet Albrechtsen has now said in her latest article: Terror beats common sense at Bondi.

That’s the conundrum for Jewish leaders. They were public opponents of reforming section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, a law that strikes at the heart of freedom of expression in Australia. Their vocal opposition was enough to send then prime minister Tony Abbott into a meek retreat, ditching an election promise to defend freedom of speech. But those who walk away from freedom of expression inevitably make it easier for others to sideline freedoms, too.

So let me pluck from the comments a number that express what I think myself.

Unfortunately the banning of the Synagogue in Bondi goes far beyond free speech, freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The core reason for the banning is not fear of terrorism this is just an excuse. Rather this is a deeply racist, it is a blatantly racist decision. The hard left like the Waverly Council and large sections of the judiciary simply hate the Jews. They don’t like them, they don’t recognise Israel’s right to exist, they hate their conservative views on life, they are pro Muslim, they don’t want Jews in Bondi. Sadly they want to get rid of the Jews.

This is capitulation to bullying and totalitarianism. We don’t want you here, not because you are doing anything wrong, but because criminals and thugs might object. It also seems to be the way the world is headed. And the central targets are the Jews, Western Civilisation and Christians.

Waverley Council, have always been left wingers. I would suggest this is more about sympathy with Palestine and the Terrorists, HAMAS, then support for a democratic country, like Israel, a country trapped within a sea of madness. Australian Jews have every right to build their house of worship, a temple to God. What is more peaceful then that, a place built to help people through trauma, to keep their faith, to pray for their dead, a place of love and faith, not a place of terror. The council has overstepped the mark, and taken control to a sinister new meaning. I am Catholic, and I support my Jewish fellow Australians.

This is so accurate that it quite spooks me. I can only think that most of us feel so insulated from all possible harm that we think the bubble will surround us forever. Our descendants will know better, but at least they will have mobile phones even if we are returning to a theocratic civilisation of barons and serfs. As for the leaders of the warring theocracies that will be fighting it out for dominance, I will merely suggest they are unlikely to be anyone from a Judeo-Christian background.