The Michael Knowles Show - Ep. 6 - Google's Church of PC Excommunicates A Heretic

Episode Date: August 8, 2017

The tech giant inclusively and tolerantly fired an engineer for contradicting the gospel of PC. Plus, Amanda Prestigiacomo, Paul Bois, and Jacob Airey join the Panel of Deplorables to discuss bureaucrats' climate change coup, the MSM's declaration of Trump's demise, and coddled guide dogs. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

A Google software engineer this week circulated a memo criticizing company policy with regard to tolerance and diversity. For which diverse opinion, Google tolerantly fired him. We'll analyze. Plus, we'll analyze, pardon, the Church of Political Correctness and its heretics. Plus, Amanda Presto, Paul Bois, and Jacob Berry joined the panel of deplorables to discuss bureaucrats climate change coup, the MSM's declaration of Trump's demise, and coddled guide dogs. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Nolan show.

Right, so you may be noticing if you're watching this on video. I have glasses now. I made it 27 years without glasses. Unfortunately, the old eyes. I know I'm not happy about it. But, you know, actually, I think this could be a good thing. For two reasons. One, we're going to be talking about those nerds at Google today.

So if I'm going to be a four-eyes, this is as good a time as any. Also, this will help me complete my full transformation into Rachel Maddow. So I've got the show now. I've got the hair and the physical stature. Now I also have the glasses. I'm very happy to say that. Okay, we have got to get to this. The other thing about these glasses,

I only need them for distance, so I have to keep taking them on and off. To quote a great man, sad. We need to talk about this engineer. His name is James Damore, or Damore. I'll pronounce it the Italian way, because I want to believe that it was an Italian American who published this beautiful memo

that is upsetting everybody at Google. The memo is titled, Google's ideological echo chamber, and it went viral. It was criticizing the culture that they have instilled at Google of political correctness and diversity and tolerance and this, that, and the other thing. He's, of course, been fired for bringing up a diverse idea, so he's lost his job after this memo went viral, both in the company and on the internet outside of the company. Now, before we unfairly lambast Google, I think it would only be fair to go to Google's CEO

Sundar Pichai for comment. Do we have them? Welcome to tolerance camp. You are here because you would not accept people's differences, because you refuse to accept the life's choices of your fellow man. Well, those days are now over. Here you will work every hour of every day until you submit to being tolerant of everybody. Here, intolerance will not be tolerated.

Wow, very profound words, not the accent that I expected from a name like Sundar Pichai. But he went on and explained a little bit more. He said after they canned this poor guy, he said, quote, much of what was in that memo is fair to debate, regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, however is that key word here, because however is negate sentences. It negates what came before it.

Portions of the memo violate our code of conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace. Much of it is up for debate, but if you violate the, if you commit a thought crime at Google, you can be fired because it violates the code of conduct. What a code of conduct that must be. He went on to say, quote,

the memo has clearly impacted our coworkers, some of whom are hurting and feel judged based on their gender. Now, this is great. NPR is reporting this morning that there are a number of women who work at Google, who, to contradict this patriarchal and sexist memo that was going around, have stayed home from work because they're so upset about what was in the memo. So way to fight the patriarchy, ladies.

The memo said that you were overly emotional and you really showed them, didn't you? Now, speaking of women at Google, the VP of Diversity and Inclusion, weighed in on that as well. Google's Vice President for Diversity and Inclusion sent a letter to employees on Saturday saying, the employee's memo, quote, advanced incorrect assumptions about gender and is not a viewpoint the company endorses, promotes, or encourages. There's one word missing. It endorsed politically incorrect. assumptions about all of those things. Also, what a job title. The Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion. I don't know what graduate degrees or credentials you need for that. Probably just

a bachelor's from a liberal arts university, Swarthmore, maybe, Wesleyan, I'm not sure. But great, good for her that she got that gig. I can't imagine what they're doing. That is what this is about. This is about PC. It's about political correctness. And that issue pervades the entire memo. So what is in this memo? I think it's a it's being reported in certain areas of the internet that the guy who wrote this, James DeMore, is a conservative. He is not a conservative. I read the memo this morning. He in many places criticizes conservatives for various points of view that the right tends to hold in the country, but what he's really criticizing is an oppressive environment that stifles free speech,

stifles free expression of ideas, and also literally discriminates against certain employees and hiring practices and benefits that are available to employees. So here are just a few quotes from the memo. You should go over and read the whole thing. It's eye-opening that this would get a guy fired. Quote, I value diversity and inclusion. I'm not denying that sexism exists, and I don't endorse using stereotypes.

The stereotypes is the key here. There's more on that later. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. The title of the piece is about the echo chamber. And of course, even a memo that was circulated at first anonymously

was enough to get a guy discovered, rooted out, and fired from Google. Quote, the lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. And that's what he's talking about. This utter emphasis on diversity of skin color, on diversity of gender, on diversity of all sorts except for diversity. of thought, the one diversity that the company probably could benefit from, and the authoritarian

elements of this as well. You see here this vice president of diversity inclusion, all of these managers whose entire job it is to program their employees, to host seminars, to host training practices, to host all of these events to change the way in which these employees think. And you see this everywhere. This is happening on college campuses. The diversity deans are multiplying by the hour. Yale has probably hired three more since we started this show today.

It's in workplaces. And it's across Google's platforms. There is a well-documented war on conservatives at YouTube. You know, they flew a lot of us out there about a month ago. I was us. I went out there. Stephen Cratter went out there, Nakay Jared, our panelists, our sometime panelists. A lot of people from across the spectrum went out.

Google said, listen, we're going to try harder. They've already cut off a lot of the revenue to conservative channels. A lot of conservatives have been banned from YouTube altogether. So hopefully there will be some remedy in the future. But Google has made its ideological positions quite clear. Now the big claim, beyond criticizing what Google is doing, the big claim that probably got this guy fired is he committed the thought crime. He committed the one unthinkable thought crime. He said men and women categorically are not exactly the same. Did you hear that, Marshall? Marshall ran out of the room. He's running out of the room crying. Can you imagine that claim? He said that there are heritable differences between men and women. They've been observed across all of cultures for all of time. These differences can't be explained solely by social environments or social conditioning,

but they're biological as well. And he made a few generalizations here, which all of the women at Google proceeded to prove correct, one after another this morning. But he made a few claims. He said, women speaking categorically, not speaking individually, not saying there aren't women who don't have these characteristics. There aren't men who do have these characteristics. But he's speaking categorically, he says that women show more openness directed toward feelings.

They tend to invest more in personal relationships rather than relationships to things. That women express extroversion more through gregariousness or more agreeable. Certainly this is true. There are other social science studies to back this up. that women are more prone to anxiety. This is obviously true. It's been backed up by myriad psychological studies. It's been backed up by pharmaceutical sales,

but that in particular riled the feathers of many in the upper echelons of Google. And that research suggests that greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men's and women's personality traits. So as there is a national ideological push for equality and indiscernible of the sexes, that those inherent biological and categorical differences

between men and women become a little clearer. They express themselves a little bit more. Crucially, he says, many of these differences are small. There is significant overlap between men and women. So you can't say anything about an individual given these population-level distributions. This is the key, because when Google, or rather, when people on the left

who present this ideological point, if you present it, it seems that there are these binary categories that we're talking about. But we're not. We're saying that there are bell curves. There's significant, if not major overlap between those two categories. And most importantly, while the left wants to put us all into little boxes and engage in the intersectionality pyramid of an hierarchy of oppression, the right, generally speaking, wants to judge people individually. Stereotypes come from somewhere, perhaps, but you can't. judge an individual based on categorical assumptions and definitions. A firm belief of the

conservative movement among individualists, libertarians, people on the right. This is what got Larry Summers fired. This isn't the first time it's rearing its ugly head. Larry Summers was president of Harvard. He presented a study that suggested that there were several reasons why women do not appear at the high-end faculty of STEM, of science, technology, math, engineering. And one of the possible reasons is that, categorically speaking, the bell curve might be different. So the bell curve for women might be a little smaller than the bell curve for men, meaning the ten dumbest people on earth and the ten smartest people on earth would be men. And then otherwise, there would be perfect overlap between men and women.

This was enough to get him canned from that position. Larry Summers, no conservative Republican, lifelong Democrat. There's also a woman hadn't won the Fields Medal, the mathematical prize until 2014. There was obviously a lack of women in these particular areas, and there's also a lack of women at Google itself. Something like 75% of the leadership of Google is male. 69% of the staff is male.

So certainly this is a male-dominated field. And for this guy, James DeMori, to ask why, to say it's perhaps not just oppression and, you know, keeping women down because of a glass ceiling in the patriarchy, perhaps there are some other reasons, is enough to lose him his job. Now, he goes on to talk about discriminatory practices. Apparently at Google, there are programs, mentoring, classes only for people of a certain gender or race,

special treatment for diversity candidates, which might effectively lower the bar for certain people who are being hired. There appear to be some illegal quotas from what he wrote in his memo. And this shows, I think, a discrepancy between the left's understanding of conservatives and conservatives' and conservatives' understanding of the left. The guy who put it better, I think, is Jonathan Haidt, who's a social scientist. He put it in a TED talk, probably the only TED talk I've ever sat through. The difference between how we view each other on both sides of the aisle.

Do we have it? So if you think that half of America votes Republican because they are blinded, in this way, then my message to you is that you're trapped in a moral matrix, and a particular moral matrix, and by the matrix, I mean literally the matrix like the movie, The Matrix. But I'm here today to give you a choice. You can either take the blue pill and stick to your comforting delusions, or you can take the red pill, learn some moral psychology, and step outside the moral matrix.

We could say that liberals have a kind of a two-channel or two-foundation morality. Conservatives have more of a five-foundation or five-channel morality. We find this in every country we look at. Here's the data for 1100 Canadian. I'll just flip through a few other slides, the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Western Europe, Eastern Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, the East Asia, and South Asia. Now, what he's saying is that there are more moral categories by which conservatives view the world in which they see the world different ways to value our place in the world and others around us and the things around us. For the left, it's narrower. It's more myopic. And so when someone on the right or a conservative, sees someone on the left doing something stupid, they might say, well, that's pretty stupid.

You clearly don't see the world in its full picture or in a full enough picture, but say la evi, that's how these things go. Whereas when someone on the left sees a conservative doing something, because they don't understand these other moral categories, they don't have as broad a moral vision of the world, they assume malice. They assume ill intent or some nefarious plotting on the world. on the part of the conservatives. Now, this kind of language is really disconcerting.

We see it throughout the culture. Listen to the double speak that we hear from other Googlers, other managers at Google. I think a culture of silence can be insidious. And I think a culture of vulnerability can be beautiful. A mantra that we've really tried to embrace here at Google is bring your full self to work. Yeah, a culture of silence. Silence can be insidious. And let's talk about the culture of vulnerability, the people who are most likely to lose their jobs if they open their mouths.

It is he is stating precisely the opposite of what he means to state, which is that if you hold certain views, you will be rooted out in the name of tolerance and diversity and fairness. Despite the very act of doing that, undermining all of those things entirely. Let's go on. We have various groups that are called ERGs. employee resource groups that focus on a variety of things from serving the black Googler community to the Hispanic Googler community to we have another group called gigglers and we're not often aware of how our biases are actually already living inside of us inclusion continues to be something that we really need to innovate around and work on I'm going to start calling marshal a gagler that's at a

totally separate point that isn't great that's That's a great little word. Of course, ever since Google realized they had this problem where men are dominating the company, they addressed it by creating safe spaces. That's language that they'll use to describe it. And those spaces are called employee resource groups. It's part of the Program Diversity Corps, and you can go and you can share your feelings. Certain employees are allowed to spend one fifth of their time coming up with initiatives

to attract women and racial minorities to the company. Fifth of their time. It's a lot of money. It's a lot of resources. But of course, that won't attract diversity of thought. So DeMore has decided to file a complaint with the NLRB, National Labor Relations Board. We'll see what comes of that.

But I imagine we can't take down the behemoth, either the tech company Google or the culture that they are taking part of. With that, we have to bring in our panel. Finally, we have to bring in our panel. This is an all-dailywire panel today. We have the Beautiful and Brainy Amanda Presta Giacomo. We have the less beautiful and less brainy Jacob Berry and Paul Blas, his eminence himself.

Guys, thanks for coming here. Paul, you are a member of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. How did the Church of PC, the cult of diversity and tolerance arise? Well, for that, we'd have to go all the way back to the time of Karl Marx, who was, of course, the first social engineer to identify people according to their economic grievances. And this, of course, translated into the social spheres in the early 20th century with philosophers like Michel Foucault and Charles Fourier. But that's a more esoteric diagnosis. And I don't think the people at Google are necessarily marching under that banner, where I think that virtue signaling gained such a mass appeal.

stems from the fact that America in the 60s and 70s lost its Christian identity. How did I know you were going to say that? I knew you were going to say that. Yes, you called me Vox Day for a reason. So they lost its Christian identity and lost its ability to forgive itself of past sins. And with that, that translated into a mass attitude of intense censorship and hatred of any idea that opposed the specific coddling and targeting of various minority groups. So I think that speaks to its mass appeal beyond that of the hard left who I think are more ideologically motivated. Sure, and there is a notion that when you lose the sense of your connection to I am that I am,

when you lose the connection of the creature to the creator, you have this question, which is who am I, which victimhood category do I fit into, and how do I exploit it for professional gain at Google? A very good question. Jacob, is Google more than a private company? You know, there are these, we kind of wonder it's a private company, why shouldn't they be able to do whatever they want to do? But are they more than that? They collude with the government. they have all of our data for every single thing that we will certainly deny having looked up on the internet. Are they more? Are they super, super business? You know, are they in part government as well?

I don't think they're in part government, but I do see the argument that says, hey, they're doing all these collusions. Like, Google literally has a system set up where they read everything you search in the Google search bar. And if something suspicious comes up, they report you to the. the government and I think that while I'm I'm hesitant to start an investigation into Google, they are a private company and quite frankly they have the right to work with the government. I think that us as consumers need to put pressure on them to say, hey, we don't like this. We want to see more conservative voices at Google and on YouTube. Is there a fear though? I mean, I agree with that. Absolutely. Is there a fear, Amanda,

that this will trickle down to other companies. Google is obviously they're lunatics. They're out there in Silicon Valley. They partake of that. The Kool-Aid out there with all of the other tech liberals. Is there a fear that this will permeate other companies in the United States? I mean, I think it already has. I mean, we see it with Facebook.

We see it on YouTube. And this is all over the place where conservatives are being rooted out. You know, you have some wrong thing. And you're booted. Your can. This guy was just talking about diversity policies. And it wasn't, apparently it didn't fall under their diversity guidelines and he was outed. So, I mean, we're already seeing it.

I guess the answer would be to try to get conservatives in this tech world. I don't know exactly how we do that. If Google is to coordinate more with the government, maybe you can have some sort of case where, you know, there could be some overreach. But again, I'm not one to push any sort of government action to, you know, restrain something. Me neither. I think you could have ended that sentence after government action. I am not one. No, just stay out of here. Yeah. And stay out of the rest of this conversation. You people who are too cheap to go to DailyWire.com. Speaking of Facebook and YouTube, we have to say goodbye to you both. We probably will have to say goodbye to you both because we'll be kicked off there shortly. Go over to DailyWire.com right now. You get to hear the rest of the panel of deplorables. You'll get the leftist tears mug.

Keeps your leftist tears hot or cold, always salty and delicious. And you can hear, Amanda and Paul and Jacob keep pontificating on the news of the day. But only if you go to DailyWire.com right now, 10 bucks a month, you get Ben Shapiro Show, Andrew Cleveland Show, and my show. So do it right now. We'll be right back. Now we have to get to the important news like the Sun Monster.

Federal agencies have leaked a report on the dangers of global warming while President Trump is away on vacation. It warns that temperatures could increase 2 degrees Celsius over the next 100 years if we stop it, if we don't do anything. And if we stop emitting these greenhouse gases, then they'll still increase half of degrees Celsius over 100 years. Now, luckily, we have a feed to the federal climate officials. Environmentalist bureaucrats, what is your reaction? Measured thoughtful, typical, typically thoughtful response from the federal bureaucrats.

Paul, aside from the global warming, we've talked about global warming, let's talk about the leak. Is this another example of the deep state trying to undermine President Trump? An example of the deep state, no. An example of fake news from New York Times? Yes. Because according to an article on Fox News right now, there actually was no leak. Several scientists who authored the report are now publicly claiming on Twitter that the New York Times published fake news and that the report was available on the Internet archives going all the way back to January. So no deep state here, but Trump's other enemy, fake news, absolutely.

Fake news in New York Times. that is a much more dangerous enemy than those bureaucrats. Amanda, President Trump is likely going to ignore this report, I assume. His USDA has stopped using the term climate change, apparently. They're now instructed to use the term extreme weather. Can we say safely that we're living in the best timeline? Is this just the best thing ever? I'm just waiting for President Trump to retweet his old tweet about China

creating climate change to basically hurt U.S. as a hoax. Like once that happens, then it's the best time ever. But good on Trump. This is why this is one of the reasons why people on conservatives and people on the right voted for Trump because he's not going to put up with the propaganda, with the PC language. I know it was global cooling, global warming, then climate change. Climate change is a PC propaganda term in and in itself.

Good for him to rid it. We're playing by his rules. And this is in part why he won. That's right. This is boldness we have not seen before. with many of the other men on that stage who are running for president in 2016, I don't think that we would see turning away from the language of climate change or climate crisis or whatever Al Gore thinks up this morning. Is this some evidence that President Trump is a conservative in maybe a different way and maybe a more meaningful way than some of the other people that were running for that seat? Well, I actually kind of think it shows the opposite.

He thinks like a leftist. He goes after them. He uses their tactics. President Obama stripped words away. that he didn't want with his intelligence reports or whatever. President Trump has that same focus that he's going to play just as dirty as they are. And so it kind of shows the opposite, in my opinion. Takes a thief to catch a thief. Very, very true. Jacob, regardless of the fake news from the New York Times, but I repeat myself, are leaks in general? Are they good for the republic?

We've seen so many leaks coming out of the Trump administration. are they good for the Republic or do they do more harm than good? Are they damaging to the presidency into the country? I honestly think they do more harm than good. You see what everyone talks about, oh, what about Watergate? Watergate was done through leaks. And well, there's one problem. Watergate actually showed that there was illegal activity going on. None of the leaks that have been released show any kind of illegality, none whatsoever. So I honestly think the ones that are being released is just an attempt to disrupt President Trump from governing. Speaking of Watergate, the Washington Post, democracy dies in darkness, as they tell me. The Washington Post ran a headline this morning, quote, Trump's base is officially crumbling.

This is based on new polling data that shows his approval ratings are falling. Jacob, when did the Washington Post lose all of its credibility? Was it immediately after Watergate? Did they have some leeway in between there? How has it fallen so far? When did it happen? I honestly think it happened in the 90s. We definitely saw the mainstream media come together for the first time openly, before it was kind of done in subtle ways,

but definitely in the 90s with President Bill Clinton, it was done more in the open. Oh, we're going to cover up all the massive spending. And then all of a sudden in 2003, their fiscal conservatives under George W. Bush for all the spending bills he wrote. So I think that on, Honestly, it came more out in the open in the early 90s, I would say. Certainly with that motto, that pathetic motto they started this year, democracy dies in darkness.

You get headlines like them. I'm surprised I didn't use three or four exclamation marks at the end. Ridiculous. Amanda, the approval numbers are down. According to the polling, Trump's numbers are down, especially among his base. But these are the same people who told us that Hillary had a 99.999% chance of being elected president. Should we believe them? Are the numbers worth believing or is it just more fake news?

So, I mean, you got to be careful. Again, just coming from this election, I'm not one to just, you know, take these polls and believe them wholesale. You know, again, this was the same media, the same analysts who are telling us that we were going to see a referendum on Trump with a special elections. That didn't turn out. But if we look at Rasmussen, for instance, which tends to be the most accurate of these polls, Trump's at 41% of the way. And the most right wing, too. It was a diplomatic way of putting it. Love Rasmussen polling.

It's great, great polling. It's almost synonymous, you know, correct, right way? That's right. So basically, that showed him at like 41%. So it looks like his numbers kind of dropped off a little bit, and that could be, you know, if these are legit at all. That could have been, you know, we saw Trump attack sessions. I don't think it's based particularly like that.

You know, just recently, the mooch wasn't the best time for our president. I will not hear. I don't believe that. We disagree. I disavow Amanda. I disavow. I love you, Mooch. But if this polling is right at all, we should see an uptick pretty soon. I mean, President Trump has a lot of good wins in the foreign policy front. So we'll probably see, we'll probably see his numbers go up. And again, with General Kelly, too, we've seen a lot has calmed down. So I would expect these numbers, if they're accurate at all, to get a boost anyhow. If they're accurate at all is a big qualifier. Paul, if the numbers are legit, what can

President Trump do to hold the Congress in the midterms to be reelected? What can he do to bounce back? Well, I absolutely think he can bounce back, Michael. I think Trump's rhetoric, Trump's agenda, Trump's spirit. I still think readily appeals to his base. I think most of them are just experiencing fatigue over the past couple months. It's attacking of Jess Sessions, the Scaramucci ordeal. I think if he just gets over those and he gets a well-oiled machine going and he brings them the MAGA that he promised them, he'll bounce back, and I think he'll win in the landslide. He just really needs to get that going. And it's really a question of can he oil his machine? Bring me the MAGA, bring me the Kaffei. That's all I want. That's all I'm asking for.

We have to get off of these. Yeah, go ahead, Amanda. I was just going to say, if he can get the Razak to pass, because, you know, Republicans are terrible and some of them are already against it. If you can get that to pass, I think that'll, his base will be really excited about that. He'll have to hurt all those cats in the Republican conference in Congress, which is not the easiest thing to do. But if he can, you're right. Maybe he can bounce back. He can get a legislative win under his belt.

But all of that, none of that matters. None of that matters coming out of Congress or the economy or the White House because a new study published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that coddled puppies make poor guide dogs. This is important. They make poor guide dogs. Amanda, does this explain our terrible generation? It does. It's almost like parenting matters. It's so funny to see all these leftist headlines,

like, so shocked that this would, like, have an effect. Yeah, I mean, you coddle children or puppies. They're not going to be the most capable or self-sufficient or, you know, the best guide dogs or the best people to hold a job and not being in their mom's basement playing video games. I mean, it's all kind of connected here. So, you know, hopefully this will click on the left of dogs. Those puppies, they get BAs and gender studies. They get M.A. MFA's and R. A lot of terrible effects from those parents coddling those poor puppies. Paul, it has become cliche to call millennials snowflakes. They have been helicopter-parented. There are participation trophies. There's grade inflation, sure. But they're also stuck with a ton of student debt, unprecedented student debt.

They are stuck with a lot of federal debt, the national debt, because of unfunded liabilities that their parents have left them and not paid for. Is it, are we being too harsh on the millennials, is it fair to call them coddled? Well, you brought me on here, so I'm going to say this. I think it's fair to call millennials spiritually malnourished. And I think that largely stems from the breakdown of the family, the breakdown of important social structures, the breakdown of religion and morality. And so, I mean, the way I put it is the baby boomers had the party, the Gen Xers, got the

leftovers and the millennials got stuck cleaning it up, you know, where the generation, you know, brainwash and a massive college debt, where the generation of broken homes, with a generation of technological gluttony. So I think they deserve a little bit more of our pity than our scorn. Sure, absolutely. Is there a way out, though? Is there a way to satiate their spiritual malnourishment?

Or is there any hope of a great awakening on the horizon? Or are we all just headed for Nihilus Descartes? Nothing short of a spiritual revolution is going to do it. But, I mean, if there's one thing that does, we should all definitely take hope in, is the fact that where millennials are conservative and where they are religious, they are very conservative and they are very religious. There is a very much a hunger among millennial conservatives to seek the Orthodox,

to seek sort of what was deprived of them by the baby boomer generation. I think that's something that may translate into a powerful social revolution. There's also clearly an exuberance among young people. I'm speaking politically here. You know, of these kind of mischievous fun people, both at the millennial generation and a little bit younger, they don't seem to be totally brainwashed, politically correct people. They seem to be rebelling against that a little bit. So maybe there's some hope. Who knows?

I'm an eternal optimist. Jacob, back to the issue at hand. If we are spending money studying puppy parenting, shouldn't we have already cured cancer or something? You know, we've heard all of these stories about federal science funding. and going to run shrimp on treadmills and study lesbian obesity? Are our resources being a little misguided here? Oh, yes, 101%. How they allocate these studies?

I have no idea. I remember Glenn Beck did this performance where he was saying unelectable, and he said that anyone who suggested that we would study what happens when fire hits ice, they should just be taken out and executed. Now, I'm not advocating violence against these people, but, you know, sometimes I definitely get the sentiments. You know, it's like, come on now. We've got ISIS terrorism. Let's, we've got terrorism.

We've got actual problems that funding for these studies can go to. And instead, we're worrying about lesbian dance therapy. I know that's a favorite attack of Ben Shapiro's. He loves to attack lesbian dance theory. and I'm all for it. We should cut it. We should cut the fat and focus on what's important. I keep inviting him to my lesbian dance therapy class. I think it would be really good for him. It would help him relax. He's a busy guy. He still hasn't taken me up on it. Okay. Well, on that call to violence, I have to say goodbye to all of you because now it is time for the final thought. Google, I'm going to put

my smart glasses on for this final thought. Google keeps using those words, diversity, inclusion, and tolerance. I do not think they mean what Google thinks they mean. The company has sent a crystal clear message today that they will not tolerate any hint of the only diversity that matters, diversity of thought. In the name of free thought, they suppress speech. In the name of diversity, they exclude those with diverse points of view. In the name of tolerance, the high clerics of Google will not tolerate heretics. G.K. Chesterton in Orthodoxy identified Google's illiberal central premise, the thought that stops thought. There is a thought that stops thought, he wrote.

That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. Wise words. I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles show. Come back tomorrow and we'll do it all again.