This is an example of how to act. John C Wright is defending his editor. They disagree on many issues. They agree on more. They are fast friends. His editor says that Mr Wright is a better man and a better writer than him. I would say that the editor writes books I enjoy more.
Mr Wright does high art, but I prefer my science fiction in the gutter.

Contrast this with the left, who do not want art: they want propaganda, and substitute comradeship in struggle with friendship.

But Comradeship requires political offices.

This question of how much to hate a man who holds a different opinion on public issues is a Leftist question, since Leftist dogma states (1) no honest disagreement is ever possible between two men; (2) all disagreements, no matter how mild, are the sign and the effect of irremovable and profound hatred; (3) only profound hatred causes disagreement.

It is on these grounds that Leftist routinely characterize any lack of total and unthinking loyalty to their ideas as “hate speech” hence as an excuse for rioting (c.f. Milo at Berkeley).

As with all their dogmas, merely to state them in clear terms shows them to refute themselves.

(If to disagree with hate-speech laws is itself hate speech, by the same token so is support for such laws, or support for any proposition whatsoever, as it must disagree with someone, somewhere.)

The concept that gentlemen never have honest disagreements is risible.

Yes, there are points were my public statements disagree with the public statements of Vox Day. He is the Darkest of Dark Lords. I am the most severe of the Grand Inquisitors. We agree on most things. Who expects we should agree on all?

Perfect uniformity of thought is neither desirable nor possible, except among the most debased imaginable population of cringing helots, fearful of the scowl of Big Brother.

People of honour should be treated honourably. But those who see honour and fairness as weaknesses to exploit must be cast out. They are beyond polite discourse: the correct response is behavioural. Do not reinforce their behaviour. Extinguish it. If they do not change, document everything, give them their warnings with witness and in writing, and remove them.

Better still, disestablish their job on their departure.

The key difference in tactics between the alt-right and traditional right is that the alt-right doesn’t place much value on playing fair, and they mock conservatives’ seeming desire to lose honorably. On a recent Periscope video Vox said that his supporters in tech companies (which he claims are numerous) should “be the second or third most enthusiastic SJW in your group.”

He considers SWJs to be the enemy that’s beyond reason. When a commentator suggested that publically supporting SJW views might give them legitimacy, Vox said “F— legitimacy. You are thinking like a conservative…”

It will be poisonous if the tech right feels compelled to not only hide their beliefs but also to actively pretend to believe in progressive diversity values. This pretending will embitter them, probably pushing many to the more radical alt-right.

It will prevent the left and right from getting meaningful feedback on their belief. Plus, if progressives never talked with people on the right, they wouldn’t get to learn that most of us do not fit their stereotypes of being sexist monsters.

When SJWs in Silicon Valley realize that their ideological enemies are hiding, they might actively search them out. They might become suspicious of the guy who was the first to stop clapping when a new diversity initiative was announced. Even worse, SWJs in human resources might become reluctant to hire those with characteristics correlated with conservatism, such as past military service.

In “SJWs Always Lie,” Vox Day writes, “If you have any SJWs working under you, fire them…Above all, you must understand that the normal rules of live and let live are no long in effect.”

Business works best if different political tribes don’t seek to crush others when they have a temporary upper-hand. If, however, the right perceived that SJWs are after them, it’s understandable (if regrettable) that they will treat SJWs likewise when they have the power.

Although the left greatly outnumbers the right in tech, if the right uses stealth tactics and the left doesn’t, the right might eventually gain an advantage in the career-destroying game because they will more easily locate high-value targets.

The alt-right’s favorite insult is “Cuckservative,” title of another Vox Day book.

A Cuckservative is a conservative who backs policies that will in the long run destroy conservatism such as, supposedly, supporting immigration of people whom will eventually become citizens who vote Democratic.

Lots of Republicans (me included) would have supported Google against government regulations and antitrust action and we were in no way bothered by Google’s massive cultural power because this was the judgement of the free market.

We considered Google a great American success story. But this firing probably shows that many Googlers find us beneath contempt. Damore’s ouster has kind of turned us into Cuckservatives.

As a free market Republican, I dislike most of the alt-right policy views. But my kind are not inclined to fight an underhanded company by company dirty political war, while the alt-right is. If SJWs force the tech right into these fights, they will push them into the eager arms of the alt-right.

The current corporative narrative is a lie. Diversity does not empower: it engenders mistrust. Freedom of speech must include speech you don’t like.

Yes, Virginia, there are differences between men and women. Thank God there are.

And a web of lies will not work, particularly when your business model relies on the trust of people who let you see their searches and web browsing as a commodity. Without that trust, you die: Google can lose such in an instant.

Such corporations are like tumbleweed. They have no foundation. Trust them not.