#in their work because it's disrespectful is...very limiting unfair and honestly ignorant

[musical-chick-13]

“A story about gay/bi people can ONLY be good, respectful, and well-written if NONE of the characters EVER suffer from homophobia.”

Please shut up.

[keyboo]

TTS2: EP 4 Recap: I can’t believe Leo lives like this

Today we join Tharn fooling himself into believing he can bake a cake. Everything seems right - he looks hot, his shirt collar is unbuttoned just enough to show dat collarbone, the room has a warm glow that often occurs when you are lovingly baking something, he even has a cute fancy denim apron despite having shown no proclivity in the kitchen.

Type isn’t fooled, though - he wakes up and hears movement in the kitchen and immediately envisions the deep clean that will be required and maybe even renovations for the fire damage. Tharn is pouty and the room loses its romance filter, and we as viewers are forced to wonder how in the hell Tharn got flour on the other side of the counter. They look like finger smudges so I can only assume Tharn was practicing a sexy pose on that side for when Type woke up.

Type isn’t hungry for Tharn’s cake but he is thirsty. You really only need to have flour on your face and to look like P’Mew to find success in the kitchen. I have a high tolerance for sexy scenes but this was the very first time in awhile I felt embarrassed to be watching, like I was intruding on their privacy - good lord, the whipped cream lip rubbing is literal porn.

I will say though I am living for how often Type is getting picked up this season.

Fiat and Leo have the sort of friendship that makes everyone around them uncomfortable all the time.You think once they finally get together the babying and the PDA will stop but it only gets worse. You have to start carrying a spray bottle when you hang out with them.

Meanwhile, Type is baby. He is also wearing Tharn’s shirt now. It is no doubt encrusted in flour and egg yolk but he is a cupcake so we don’t mind. You remember season 1 where Type could barely bring himself to be affectionate or admit his feelings, and here we have Type cuddling and asking Tharn out on a date, and it’s just very nice. Chef kiss. I only think it’s slightly unfair that MewGulf are being paid to do what they do constantly IRL but whatever.

Tharn takes Type to the restaurant where P’Thorn proposed to Am for...reasons???! If anyone can explain this choice to me, please go ahead - otherwise I’m inclined to think Tharn’s head is just full of cotton candy. Tharn and Type show off their improved communication skills while showcasing their differing outlooks when it comes to risk (hello season theme) - Tharn wants to expand his business already, but Type warns him to slow it down and be careful. Neither are wrong, and they’re able to have this difference of opinion without getting angry with each other, which I enjoyed. Tharn says he wants his business to do well so he can take care of Type, who reminds Tharn he can take care of himself.

Another conversation that showcases the differences in Tharn and Type’s attitude towards risk, as well as their differing attitudes towards wealth. Type has taken over the household financial planning because Tharn is careless with his money. Having come from wealth, Tharn doesn’t seem concerned about spending, whereas Type reminds him its important to have savings set aside. Type is always thinking of the future, while Tharn thinks of the now - another reason why they are finding it difficult to reconcile their differences about a wedding, while in this very scene proving how incredibly married they are already.

Type runs into Fiat and Leo buying shoes and Fiat flirts with Type right in front of Leo’s salad. Type could not be more obviously uninterested in Fiat romantically, but Leo is still understandably upset because Fiat is blatantly ignoring Leo’s feelings. Leo is in love with a fuckboi and we should all pray for him.

Tharn for once has a sense for when somebody is Up To No Good around his man. Type is so oblivious to his own charm that he can’t tell Fiat is hitting on him. Type is unaware that he leaves a trail of brokenhearted baby gays wherever he goes but Tharn knows because Tharn was that baby gay.

Omg just fuck already.

P’Thorn and Tharn are signing IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS. Look at Tharn’s suit jacket. Look at his pin. Look at his pen. LOOK AT HIM.

Our gold digger from last week makes an appearance and gives a bad name to the craft because she is not at all sneaky about it by bringing ONLY THARN snacks and coffee.

P’Thorn shows he is not only overprotective of Tanya but of his little brother too. He is icey cold to this girl. He also gives Tharn good advice to give Type time on the wedding thing and that Type’s concerns aren’t unreasonable. P’Thorn is a good big brother in all arenas except keeping secrets.

 Omg just fuck already.

Here we have another wonderful scene of Tharn being attuned to Type’s physical and emotional well being, and reminding him to take care of himself. Where Type may have once aggressively refuted any such care, he gently reminds Tharn that he knows his own limits but agrees to take a break and eat dinner. HEALTHY COMMUNICATION, WE DO LIVE TO SEE IT.

Did I mention how much I love Type? I love this calculating expression he gets when he smells something fishy. He notices the same girl liking/commenting on every one of Tharn’s insta posts. I don’t think Type is suspicious of Tharn here - a) because Tharn is gay but more importantly, b) he trusts Tharn implicitly. But as always our Type has a tingly sense for when something doesn’t feel right. I love that it only takes a look through instagram for him to clue in that someone might be messing with Tharn.

I stan One Idiot.

Okay honestly who the fuck is this nerd and does anyone else want to punch him? I know the running theory with Type’s boss hating him is that he’s homophobic but I think he’s obviously fucking his assistant or why else would his assistant have the AUDACITY to look at Type like this. 

Poor Leo disrespects himself by taking his shirt off and chugging water sexily and Fiat STILL doesn’t notice because he’s inappropriately texting his doctor. It worked for Tharn is S1, why won’t it work for Leo??? Leo, baby, you deserve more.

Nothing will ever top this scene for me in either season, I’m sure of it. Tharn laying on Type’s lap. Type feeding him popcorn. They have a set of matching mugs that says ‘ladies gloss your lips’ and ‘men comb your mustache’ - neither of them are ladies or have mustaches WHY DO YOU OWN THIS - they are eating POPCORN AND CHIPS. A cute little movie night, I am INTO IT.  The casual domesticity of a couple who’s been together 7 years. I would be okay if the whole series was like this and no drama.  

Gulf just looks so fine here too.

But....its a drama so there’s drama. Type is still anxious about what he saw on Tharn’s insta. Again, I don’t see this as distrust so much as concern and worry for Tharn.

Well....speaking of trust. Type does a no good very bad thing here by looking at Tharn’s phone secretly. Even for purposes of being protective, this is not okay.

....kdalkjdlkasjdklajsdlkss

BUUUTT since he shows up looking like THIS to catfish the girl who is hitting on his man....

I mean, I personally forgave him instantly but we’ll see what Tharn says next week. 

[itsclydebitches]

Hello again, everyone! This is a long one so let’s dive straight in. 

We open up on Fox who, like everyone else in this novel, is upset about one thing or another. In his case it's that he wound up watching a club/gambling house (the exact nature of the establishment is murky) with Coco instead of patrolling the more lively restaurant and club district (even though this place, as said, is referred to as a club at time). Which, to be fair to Fox, is a legitimate complaint when you're blind and can't really do the whole "watching" part of the activity. Initially he believes that Coco must have a good reason for choosing him... “Unless he’d done something to get on her bad side." 

In fact, this is such a likely possibility that Fox begins questioning Coco on where everyone is (a convenient way to let the audience know too), what they were assigned to do, and whether that assignment came about due to petty revenge. He complains that Team SSSN has gotten all the "fun stuff"—are you doing a job or goofing off, Fox?—but Coco reassures him that they're not being rewarded and he's not being punished. It's just that any other combination didn't sit right with her. Would Fox have enjoyed going off with Sun? No. If Sun was paired with another would they have wanted to watch Neptune? Not really. Does Fox even trust Sun? Not as of yet: 

"I don’t know Sun yet. Not really. I guess I don’t trust Team SSSN to not mess things up for us. They’re sloppy and off-balance right now.” 

Coco follows this up by saying that Scarlet and Sage get to guard the Academy wall because she doesn't want Scarlet near Sun after their argument at the group therapy meeting, and he himself is "too zealous" about protecting the Academy. So it's just easier not to fight him. “If we don’t want them to get in our way, or worse, raise a big enough stink that we can’t continue our investigation, it’s better to keep them involved in a limited capacity.”

Now, there's a lot to unpack in that statement and I'm not particularly impressed with any of it. First, it bears repeating that we're now four chapters in —about 60 pages in my PDF—and we're still dragging Team SSSN to the shattered moon and back. I'm not claiming that, as Fox says, they're not dealing with stuff right now, or that their emotions are clouding their skills and perception (I called Sun out for that just last chapter), but I certainly question the "friends" who discuss those problems in such a smug manner, rather than wondering if and how they might help. Thus far, the criticism of Team SSSN serves only for Team CFVY to continually paint themselves as the superior group. They assume that, unless handled delicately, SSSN would inevitably "mess things up" because they, at their core, are a worse team than CFVY. These comments exist only to boost CFVY's ego. Thank the gods we're not like that. 

This is the same Coco who thought that she knew something about regaining the trust of her team. But does she extend any sympathy and understanding here? Nope. It continues to amaze me how often RWBY writes characters going through very similar, difficult circumstances and yet so few of them admit to those similarities, let alone act on them. 

Second, in a franchise rife with themes about earned trust and manipulation, it's worth acknowledging that Coco moves everyone around, including her own team, based on pretty unsubstantiated emotions rather than logic. As someone who has done nothing but insult Sun to his face thus far, she hasn't exactly earned his trust either, yet she's willing to prioritize this assertion that he'll "mess things up" over the best choices for this mission. Meaning, Fox initially thinks that Coco, as a brilliant leader, has a persuasive reason for giving him this task. We learn she doesn't. He then thinks Coco gave him this task as a form of punishment. She didn't. So what are we left with? Coco claims she gave her orders based on her and Fox being able to chat (yay telepathy), but her explanation says it’s really about what she thinks SSSN might do, rather than what she knows her own team can do. At the end of the day (or night in this case) we've got the blind guy on stakeout using his telepathy to keep her entertained, rather than taking the mission he's both better suited for and enjoys more. Coco spouts a lot of stuff that sounds like leader-ly strategy, but in the end she made these calls primarily because she doesn't like SSSN. 

So why are they working together again? Because the plot demands it? I wish the novel had done more to justify this partnership other than, 'If we don't let SSSN help they'll rat us out because they're terrible like that.' If the teams hate one another this much just let them work apart. Otherwise, please start the process of having them grow and begin to appreciate one another. As it stands, we have a few buddy-buddy moments that imply they’re “really” friends when the rest of the novel has done little to demonstrate that. It’s confusing at best and uncomfortable at worst, in the same way that watching the group happily invite Oscar to the movies after volumes of ignoring/attacking/using him as an Ozpin scapegoat is uncomfortable. It’s weird. I’m glad it exists, but how did we get here? 

However, this growth isn’t going to happen tonight because Coco likewise ensured that no one is mixing. As Fox points out, "conveniently enough, this way you don’t have to break up our team, or mix them and us.” Nor has Coco broken up the usual partner teams of Sun and Neptune, Scarlet and Sage. Anyone who follows my other metas know that I'm waiting for the webseries to mix up RWBY and JNR more (thank you, Volume 8 preview), or at least have Blake work with someone other than Yang and Weiss work with someone other than Ruby, so I was disappointed to see this same trend not only repeated here, but celebrated by another character. Though not as overt as some of the problems in Volumes 6 and 7, this is what I mean by RWBY introducing conflicts but doing little to resolve them. It's a decent setup to pit SSSN's problems against CFVY's bias—When will Sun apologize to his team? When will Coco acknowledge that her intense criticism of him is born far more from assumptions than proof? When will both teams extend a hand to one another that isn't done in the name of self-preservation?—but thus far it's nothing but setup. And the longer it goes on the less a single scene of growth can stand up against that. The less space we have for that growth, period. This is my problem with many villain redemption arcs: a few episodes of contrite behavior cannot emotionally outweigh whole seasons of horrific actions. It's a presumed redemption based on audience expectations, rather than something we see earned throughout the course of the story. For me, there has to be a certain amount of time and effort put into that change. The worse the actions, the more time and effort needed to, if not absolve them, at least get everyone to a point where they can be set aside. Before the Dawn feels like a very mild case of this, in that I'm wondering how long everyone is going to act this way towards one another before things start getting better. The longer it goes on, the more I expect of the story in order to dig the characters out of it. Though serviceable, a scene like "Then Sun realized he was pushing everyone away and Coco realized she'd been too hard on him, so they both decided to change. Maybe for persuasive reasons, maybe not. The end" isn't emotionally engaging. The disagreeable characteristics across this cast are numerous, yet RWBY doesn't feel like a story where I'm suppose to dislike everyone in an entertaining way—a la Mean Girls. 

Thus, I'm wondering when we'll actually start the work of getting me to like this group more/getting them to like each other more, as well as how much of that work we’ll see overall. 

Right, I've blathered on about this quite enough. The story (unconsciously I assume) continues to emphasize how expected it is that Coco would give awful jobs to teammates because she's annoyed with them, which doesn't say great things about her leadership, but that at least is something I could easily see a teenager with that kind of power doing. She and Fox round out the list of bad jobs by mentioning that Velvet and Yatsuhashi got stuck with grimm watch, "the duty of the low-rent Huntsmen who worked loosely with local law enforcement to help keep the peace." Given how they discuss this, the implication seems to be that this is an insulting job to give their teammates, which is hilarious considering that these four aren't even huntsmen yet. They're second years! 'What'd they do to deserve a job for low-rent huntsmen?' asks the guy who isn't a huntsmen at all yet. 

We learn though that there has been a rise in grimm across the city. How did Coco get that information? 

Coco laughed. “I snuck into [Professor Rumpole's] office.” 

“Coco!” Fox said.

“Don’t lecture me, Fox.”

Fox smiled. “How dare you do that without inviting me,” he sent. 

I get it. I honestly do. It may not seem at times that I understand that a story about a bunch of students has to find a way to get those students involved, or that these students, as teenagers, will do stupid things, that as humans they’ll even do horrible things... but surely there's a way to achieve all this without having our heroes constantly treat their allies in such a callous, disrespectful manner. Breaking rules is not inherently a bad thing. Some rules are unfair and upholding them does more harm than good. Some rules, while important from one perspective, can be broken without any serious repercussions. I never had a problem with Harry, Ron, and Hermione constantly breaking their curfew because kids sneaking out of bed isn't hurting anyone (overlooking the potential of the magic castle hurting them, but I digress). The rule exists for reasons like "You need enough sleep and are unlikely to get that unless we make you" and "A bunch of 11-year-olds shouldn't be left unsupervised in the magic castle" and "Learning how to follow some simple rules and listen to your guardians helps build basic skills needed for adulthood" but really? At the end of the day the Trio breaking that rule—particularly for good reasons like "We suspect nefarious Dark Lord shenanigans are afoot"— is far from the end of the world. Harry Potter also has the added benefit of making the adults actually useless and/or indifferent a lot of the time. We had a story where the kids, more often than not, were the last line of defense. 

Rumpole? She is not useless or indifferent. Two chapters ago we established that she is conducting an investigation, Team CFVY just decided that wasn't enough because they want to be involved. And breaking into her office to snoop through her desk? That's not a harmless crime! Beyond the fact that Coco is looking for info she's not allowed to have and finding additional information she's not supposed to have, that's a serious breach of privacy. Clearly neither of them have enough respect for Rumpole to care about that though. Casual rule-breaking like that should be reserved for characters who have failed to earn the respect of the characters or the audience, demonstrating a lack of ethics that (arguably) justifies whatever they get. Basically, the Umbridges and the Lockharts of the world, not the Rumpoles who—far as I have seen so far—have done nothing but take their students seriously and adhere to not unreasonable expectations like, "Please don't get involved in something that might get you killed [cough-Sun taking on three goons-cough] and/or don't ruin the investigation I've already started." Or, at the very least, have the characters feel contrite and guilty about what they felt they had to do.

Why do I like these characters again? It would at least be more satisfying if the story acknowledged that the vast majority of our cast has turned into anti-heroes. I'm fine with that story! But not the one that claims it's "necessary" that our "classic" heroes pull stunts like breaking and entering, theft, lying, etc. without actually providing compelling reasons for those actions. Let Coco break into Rumpole's office, but do the work first of convincing me why she should be involved in this in the first place, why this info is necessary, and why doing that to an ally is necessary too. Kindhearted heroes should have a different reaction to unnecessarily breaking their instructor’s trust than laughter and jokes.

In considering how Before the Dawn intersects with the main webseries, I think it's also worth highlighting that casual line about how more grimm are getting into the city: "There’s been a rise in incidents of Grimm wandering into the city lately." That was one of the major conflicts of Volume 7 and one of the things the fandom uses as a means of mapping Ironwood's downfall: grimm were getting into the city and he failed to stop it, ergo he's a terrible leader, ergo he’s a terrible person, shooting Oscar is something I’d expect of him. Yet the same thing appears to be happening in Vacuo and, thus far, the story isn't interested in giving it the same gravitas. How are the grimm getting in? If the situation is bad enough that Theodore is sending both huntsmen and students to deal with it—“So that’s why Theodore’s been sending more students out lately, clearing the immediate area of Grimm"—isn't he a failed leader as well? Either one of these perspectives work, just not both at once. Either grimm attacks are an inevitable result of living in Remnant and the people deal with them without assigning undo blame, or both headmasters should be facing heat for failing to keep this from happening. So I'll be interested to see if this comes up again and, if so, how. Because right now Coco and Fox are treating it like a casual occurrence, whereas Volume 7 painted it as a serious failing. 

We finally learn that Coco and Fox are watching this club because there are two huntsmen gambling inside instead of out doing their job. Except maybe they're off and just like gambling? How do they know there are huntsmen inside to begin with? Or, if they're unsure of that, why are they staking out this specific club? Did they pick one at random because clubs have been associated with the baddies? I feel like I'm constantly playing catchup with this novel. Details are mentioned like Meyers introduced them earlier (he didn't) but then those details still fail to help me make sense of the scene or the characters’ motivations. As I mentioned in the last recap, I never have both pieces of information: what exactly the characters are doing and why they're doing it. Fox and Coco's entire conversation revolves around Fox not know why they're here or what anyone else is up to, but instead of answering his questions we get pieces of information—huntsmen, clubs, grimm attacks, the Crown—that don't easily fit together but are presented as if they do. Then the plot just lands in their lap. Meyers never needs to explain why Coco took the time to stake out this particular club out of an entire city's worth because, of course, it just so happens to be the club where something nefarious is going on. Once they're chasing two baddies it's too late. We've moved on. 

Before we get into that chase though, I'd just like to point out the exceedingly odd anti-huntsmen sentiment in this chapter. subtle, but there. As mentioned previously, we have a potential dig at low-rent Huntsmen and the kinds of jobs they do. Then we're told that 

"Nothing much happened in Vacuo, and when there was an argument or a crime, people tended to sort things out on their own—with their fists. But when it came to Grimm, Vacuans depended on Huntsmen to fight their battles for them." 

This one is admittedly me reading into things a bit (in case anyone missed it: I don't hold this novel in particularly high esteem lol) but "fight their battles for them" is usually a phrasing meant to carry another subtle insult. You need someone else's help and that's bad. Which makes a certain amount of sense for Vacuo's focus on strength, but I wonder why the huntsmen are getting brought into this for... doing their jobs? The explicit purpose of huntsmen is to fight grimm, so it's pretty weird to have a line that implies any negativity for them doing that. Oh, you need huntsmen to fight your battles? How horrible. Even though the huntsmen as an institution exist to fight those battles. It's like saying the first department has to “fight your battles” because you’re not capable of putting the fire out yourself. It carries an implication that, ideally, huntsmen wouldn’t be needed at all. Not because grimm go away, but because people  would be able to fight grimm... even though, again, that fantasy already exists within the huntsmen. It’s just weird. 

Finally, Fox outright theorizes that maybe there are more grimm because “the Huntsmen are getting lazy" and I'm just ????? You want to be?? A huntsmen??? What is this characterization? At best it reads like Meyers forgot that this group playing detectives are training to become a part of the institution they're criticizing. At worst it reads like the team simply believes themselves to be better than other huntsmen for undisclosed reasons. Like there are normal huntsmen doing grunt jobs and being lazy, and then there's Team CFVY who experienced A Battle and consider themselves vastly more experienced as a result (despite others like Scarlet trying to remind them that they're still only students). I doubt Coco and Fox will come to realize this, not unless something in Before the Dawn really knocks them down a peg, but I honestly wonder in these recent installments why most of these characters want to be huntsmen at all. It’s a job that requires adhering to a hierarchy of authority, obeying the laws of the kingdom you're in, and working closely with what allies are available to you. They don't seem to want any of that, but nor do they frame this as a flawed institution that they hope to improve: “Huntsmen do have a reputation for being lazy, but we’ll fix that once we get our licenses.” As it stands, they want to be vigilantes, getting praise for their deeds but being able to break the rules whenever they please. 

Their theorizing is interrupted though when two huntsmen exit the club. How does Coco know they're huntsmen? Huntsmen don't wear uniforms and lots of non-huntsmen folk carry weapons... I simply don’t know. But these two offer to walk one of the gamblers home, considering he's won a fair bit of lien that night. Fox gets interested because their auras are bright enough that he can see them and they're identical, which isn't normal. 

But wait. Back up. 

Can everyone see auras? Obviously we as the audience can, but the RWBY folk in-world potentially can't, not if Coco doesn't see how "vivid" these auras are herself. Fox is the one providing this information and Fox is the one who needs to track the huntsmen when they flee. This ability seems to be unique to him.  

Why can Fox see auras then? That's not his semblance and, far as I can tell, it isn't logically a byproduct of telepathy (like how healing is a byproduct of Jaune amplifying aura). Honestly, it feels like 'The blind character has a special way of seeing the world' trope without actually explaining what that special way is or where it came from. 

Why is Fox emphasizing that he can see the auras? The implication is that they're so powerful he, the blind guy, can actually see them... but how is he 'seeing' them the rest of the time? This isn't the first time Fox has been aware of someone's aura because he informs Coco that they're not normally the same color, but if these auras are unique because he can see them, what's happening every other time he comes across non-identical/powerful/weird auras? Does Fox just feel them somehow? Is it a non-visual sense and strong/weirdo auras propel it into sight as well? I'm very confused by all of this. 

Regardless, it quickly becomes clear that these huntsmen are actually kidnapping the guy. Fox uses teamspeak to call everyone to him... including SSSN. So much for this remaining a secret until Fox trusts them! It would be one thing if Fox was forced to cast a wide net, but far as I can tell there's nothing stopping him from taking an extra two seconds to just contact his team. In the span of about a day in-world we're given two different explanations here. First it's 

Velvet whispered a description of what they were seeing to Fox, avoiding teamspeak for SSSN’s benefit. No one found out about Fox’s Semblance until he trusted them enough to let them in on it.

then it's

Velvet jumped in. “It’s Fox’s Semblance. He’s telepathic. And he likes surprising people with it.”

So which is it? Does Fox treat his semblance as a closely guarded secret in an effort to protect himself, get an edge in battle, all that jazz, or does he just like waiting to spring it on people as a practical joke? Because if it's the former, Team SSSN haven't done anything in the last couple of hours to suddenly earn Fox's trust. Nothing we're shown, anyway. Rather, we just finished a conversation where Coco basically goes, 'You trust Sun?' and Fox's response, though somewhat noncommittal, basically amounts to a, 'Nah.' 

Well, SSSN knows now. Everyone starts heading Fox's way while Coco interrupts the two huntsmen in the midst of their kidnapping. The kidnapee, a merchant, blurts something about not being helpless and Coco threatens to leave him. 

"Coco had a real sadistic streak sometimes. Just one of the reasons she and Fox made great partners."

Hello, friends, family, and people of the internet: am I insane for thinking this is not how you write heroes? It's one thing if you're using "sadistic" as an obvious exaggeration—Coco playfully teases Velvet about her supposedly awful clothes. She's got a real sadistic streak—but threatening to leave someone to be kidnapped because, what? People need to act helpless enough for her to deem saving? Who writes their supposedly classic hero like that and then makes her partner go, 'Haha yeah she's mean. That's why we're friends :D' 

Real badasses are kind and I stand by that. 

Of course, the merchant immediately backtracks and Coco demands his release. Sun and Neptune arrive, recognizing the two huntsmen as the goons that Sun fought. There's some talk about a "She" who they're expected to deliver the merchant to and Velvet—again—brings up the rescue. 

“You mean the ones we rescued Sun from?” Velvet asked. “Come on!” Sun sent.

Recurring jokes like this are only good when 1. The characters are established as actually liking one another (otherwise they're not jokes) and 2. It doesn't come up every other chapter. When the chapters are roughly ten pages each. 

Before a fight can start though the goons give up, dropping the merchant and making a run for it. Fox is sent after them. He uses his ADA machine to navigate his surroundings, which is a detail I really like and appreciate. He's blind. There's no reason why he wouldn't use accessibility tools to assist him. So well done there. 

The goons disappear into an abandoned building that ADA identifies as a former dust refinery. There's also a comment about how tall it is compared to the other buildings in Vacuo. Fox loses them because of the number of people inside—all those auras blending together—and, like the goons themselves, a lot of those auras "seem the same." Velvet and Yatsuhashi arrive to assist Fox... but their assistance amounts to Yatsuhashi trying and failing to cut down the door with his sword?? Then all those potential baddies know they've found the super secret hideout. Well done. 

They're lucky they just asked for a password. Which, of course, the group doesn't know. 

With more time to observe the mass of auras, Fox drops the bombshell that he thinks one of them may be Professor Rumpole's. The group quickly decides that she must be conducting her investigation, but the other obvious possibility that they don't seem to realize (yet) is that she's working with them instead. If Rumpole does end up evil or something I just want to say that my previous points still stand. It’s not okay for the group to twist her 'Don't get involved' into a 'Well, she just doesn't want us to get caught.' Not okay for Coco to sneak into her office and snoop on official reports. Sometimes people will retroactively absolve characters of bad decisions because much later the person who bore the brunt of those decisions turns out to be bad... but the characters didn't know that at the time. The Lockhart and Umbridge examples above work because they were introduced as terrible people who were then later revealed to be even worse than the characters previously knew: Lockhart moves from an inept, overbearing idiot to a con artist erasing others' memories; Umbridge moves from a cruel instructor to a torturer whose rhetoric aligns with the Dark Lord's. Rumpole? Far as the group knows she's done nothing but assist and teach them.  

So the three are just standing around, wondering what to do and what it all means. Coco calls Fox only for Fox to immediately hang up on her because everyone is already using teamspeak. Why bother to call in the first place? I don't know. But they fill Coco in and she decides not to ruin Rumpole's (presumed) investigation. Which is good! Yes, Coco does it partly for self/team-serving reasons

Coco shut the idea down quickly. “If we interfere in her investigation and blow whatever she’s doing, we’ll get worse than detention. She’ll probably kick us out of Shade. And we’ll have ruined the usefulness of the information she’s gathering. I say we give her time to do her thing.” 

but if fear of expulsion gets them to make a smart call, I'll take it. Besides, as Coco herself points out, they now have some leads to follow. They can continue their investigation without diving headfirst into the danger pool. Like Yatsuhashi apparently wanted to do. Attacking the door with his sword. 

(Seriously what was the plan there? Cut open metal, barge your way inside, and take on a massive group yourselves—two of which you already know attacked Sun? It's an Experience™ to be in the heads of teens who think they're hot shit, but act so, so dumb. Admittedly this is something to praise about Myers' writing: of course the personal PoV of these characters is going to contrast reality. What they think they’re like and what an outsider sees will often differ.) 

Coco goes on to reiterate that the merchant was "rude" about being rescued, threatening to “report us to the headmaster, once he found out we’re only students, not licensed Huntsmen." Which yeah, that's a dick move. Coco was awful for threatening to leave him, but if a bunch of kids saved me from a kidnapping I wouldn't threaten them with punishment because they're not the police. The implication is that he's xenophobic, given that he was a little too interested in how they're from Beacon/Haven and would only talk to Sun. Coco is "smug" about it. 

Note the pattern again: Coco threatens something horrible, later the guy is revealed to be an asshole for unrelated reasons, so she's smug about her actions. See? He deserved what he got. But that's not how this works. If I walk up to someone and randomly punch them, then it's revealed they’re a criminal, I don't get to act all pleased that I spotted an asshole and took action early. I still punched someone without provocation. For anyone, but especially for a hero, ‘They were vaguely sort of mean/rude to me’ is not a good justification for objectively cruel acts. I’m looking at you, RWBY and Witcher. 

More important for the plot, Coco reveals that the merchant doesn't have a semblance and the club owner claims the two goons really are huntsmen—though who can say for sure. With little else to do, Coco makes plans to return to Rumpole's office tomorrow. 

“And snoop around some more?” Fox asked.

“No,” Coco said. “I’m going to ask her some questions.” 

I suppose that's an improvement? I cannot possibly express how not engaging this mystery is though. It's vaguely confusing and feels all-around cobbled together. Every action the group has taken so far hasn't just been unnecessary (I prefer heroes who have a good reason—or at least perceive they have a good reason—for getting involved when others are already working to solve a problem), but it’s also dependent on coincidence to a frustrating degree. Even in a story where I know and accept and welcome some coincidence to move the plot along. But this? Sun gets involved because he follows a woman when he doesn't actually know if she's in trouble or not, but of course she is. Then they stand around a wall until the story drops a crying girl in their lap, because of course a person will have gone missing the second they need a lead and are in the perfect place to receive one. Then Coco seems to pick a club at random to stakeout, because of course that will be the one club where our two huntsmen/goons will be trying to kidnap someone new. None of their intellect, knowledge, or skills lead them to the next phase of the investigation, with the exception of Coco breaking in to steal info about the case. Obviously RWBY is not meant to be a classic mystery, but as a massive Sherlock Holmes fan this is a slog to get through. We have no compelling reason why the group is investigating and the investigation itself isn't teaching us anything compelling about them. This could have been the place to demonstrate how a huntsmen's skills go far beyond just throwing a punch. Instead we see... what? That Yatsuhashi can try to break down a door and say "Ow" about it? At least the webseries gave us two faunus donning grimm masks to sneak into the extremist, faunus-only meeting. Comparatively that's a leagues better investigation than the one we’re getting here. 

Am I surprised? No. Do I still hope that this book will improve? Always. We'll see what Chapter Five gives me. 

Until then! 💜

[dametopazkiarablair]

Honestly no, I need to talk, and I don’t think I can talk to anyone.

My boyfriend is truly amazing. But he’s getting fed up with me, and no, I’m not trying to feel sorry for myself. I think he resents that I don’t know what my problem is. I can say that at least he’s good at trying to logically deline everything, to take everything into literal terms.

But I honestly feel as if it’s not safe to talk to anyone I know about anything.

I am a barista. It’s not my endgame position. But that’s where I’ve been for about a year.

I ended up venting in anxiety about how I felt, but as it always does, it backfired. And I told my boyfriend that it involved him, and now I’m not trustworthy in his eyes. I think that at least a little part of him resents it, and now he’s on defensive mode, especially when I cry. Which I can’t seem to stop doing lately.

He seems to be feeling that this is going on forever. He feels that I keep bringing these things up.

I feel that its not my intention to be passive aggressive or to put him on defense. My guess is that he feels that I am being abusive towards him by not knowing how to explore my boundaries and come to an understanding of how to communicate to him.

It seems that I am not able to repair the damage of venting to a male coworker. How foolish I am. But He thinks that I have loose lips.

And so I guess I do. And so the only person I can talk to about this is actually a therapist, because there are so many layers of good. And then there’s been some shittiness in the last few weeks.

And so now that my boyfriend is in defensive mode and now that I’m crying, just trying to understand. Now that I am seeing that my neurotics are taking over?

How do you solve your own personality flaws?

why can’t I just magically be done with this processing of actually being a slut.

I had an abortion, and that is supposed to be a secret. But what I’ve learned also is that every thought I have is supposed to be a secret. I am not supposed to vent. I am not supposed to be crazy.

But at least I’m medicated.

This trust issue. It’s a major trust issue.

He wants to have condomless sex. I am on birth control, and he feels that is enough. He has given me statistics about how birthcontrol will keep you from getting pregnant. So he wants me to absolutely agree to have sex without condoms. He wants me to feel comfortable with it. He wants me to get past my mental barriers. And basically, he doesn’t want to have sex with me now because I’ve been so emotional lately.

I feel emotional partly because I lost his trust.

He is so good at arguing or protecting himself, whatever you call it. I just freeze. Advocating for myself is not a strong suit of mine, and I’m not trying to feel sorry for myself when I say that.

So now we can’t sleep well. He has a particularly hard time sleeping, and basically, I am to blame for some of that. He wouldn’t admit to that.

But I feel like a hoe. I have baggage. He doesn’t want to deal with it, and he’s getting tired of it.

I had been forthcoming when I regretted a conversation I had with a coworker.

The job is to talk to people and make coffee. I just am sitting here throwing away. I’m tired of working there. and then I spilled my guts.

And it’s not fine. It’s not okay to let anxiety control you. It’s not okay to cry so easily.

It is my problem and he’s acting defensive because I betrayed him.

He did so much for me and I felt guilty.

And now I’m just neurotic and yet I now look like I am trying to start fights. Because he is feeling defensive and tired of me. He is proving to me that he is not ‘clingy’.

Because it was my mistake to say anything at all at work about that time.

I can’t say anything at all anymore, and he truly doesn’t believe that I have learned that lesson.

And yet he will not allow me to numb myself to get into okayig with it.

Because I am in the wrong here and I can’t bring it up and yet I need to be cheerful and act as if nothing happened even if he brings it up.

Because he is tired of my crying.l

He keeps saying I should say something and then he keeps refuting it and then it seems like he wants me to be okay with all the answers he gives me and then he keeps askiing why I’m crying.

Why can’t I stay so cheerful

And how to be so authentic

Because my job right now is on the low end of the spectrum, and he has his lessons.

I mean his limits.

He doesn’t allow me to treat it as a lesson, I feel. He wants me to take care of it now. And so he also doesn’t take my word that I will tell no one. He doesn’t take my word that I will see my therapist, and that it will get better even if it taies a while.

And he makes it clear that I started all of this.

Which is why I can’t talk to anyone that I know.

He thinks that I have been incredibly disrespectful.

What I wish I could easily portray is that I don’t know what he considers to be respectful. But at this point, I am doubting myself.

I feel like I have to change the person I am, the way I interact with people.

We somehow have to ignore that this all happened.

While neither of us forget.

And so right now my love is writing these empty words that describes my experience and confustion.

Becasue the thing is that no one is going to want to read a post from a rando that is long, and especially if this not even a blog meant to be read.

but I feel tired.

because the elements of change are making themselves know.

that he wouldn’t say this, but I can’t talk about this with anyone

because when I do I just get into trouble

because I have been too honest about telling what happened even though I regret it.

that I have apologized, and there is just no apology that will get that acceptance back

i feel that I have lost his respect in the process.

that all of the questions _ tonight it was about a cervical sponge- just fucking go to hell

 the become about hte problems

I wish I understood how to think and process this all

i just feel like a fucking child.

I am some slut that takes it raw and yet last time it lead to an abortion but this time the birthcontrol is going to save my ass

He has said he has just been patient with me more so than other people

it may be true. I don’t know.

But apparently I don’t know enough about the world, I haven’t figured out enough about the world

to somehow be at ease when I’ve been hurt

and to know exactly

how to be cheerful and not let a damn thing effect it

because i am just not getting reassurance from him. he feels that it’s unfair.

it makes me feel so immature

and i just have never been in this situation

adn yet he doens’t want me to numb myself.

i think he is so tired that he doesn’t want to heare what I hve t o say even if I can’t figure out what to say in the first place.

and I’m pissed off too.

so I guess someone’s frequency is falling

he says he wants to support me

but i know if I numb myselfto my emotions he won’t accept that.

he won’t accept me crying.

and i don’t think he knows what to do with me but I think he’s really being pushed to his limit. he is questioning if I’m worth it.

I never meant to cause him such issues

and he wants me to tell him, but he assums that I know.

I don’t always know how to react, how to think.

And I can’t be logical all the time.

and so

if I could numb myself

if I could call on a therpaist like a fucking fairy grandmother like out of cinderella, at any time of day or night, i would

I know he values honesty

but if he wants me to be cheerful, he would let me have my tears and then be fake.

he would let me fake being cheerful

I don’t want to know him either.

we meet tomorrow after I work.

at some park.

I feel like there’s so many damn criticisms, ad I know he does it to help me improve myself, because he’s rare.

but I just have no room to criticise him. there’s nothing to say, and even if i did, he can argue like a debate team chamption

and so I”m damn tired.

I’m tired that I apparently wasted his time while he was teacing me python

I resent that I couldnt do it by myself

and since I had an abortion, he feels that I am somehow punishing him for someone else’s issue

but really i’m just some slut who just has cognitive dissonance about what is or what isn’t protected sex

and he makes it clear he doesn’t need me. because he’s not ‘clingy’ .

I didn’t know I was this two-faced either.

I didn’t know.

and so I am to blame.

and he says he doesn’t feel sorry for people for sorry for theselves

and i don’t really know if I feel sorry for myself

i just know that I feel horrible

I don’t like being nitpicked, but I do want to get better, so i allow it.

and so

i have to find meaning in other ways

he gave me such a life

he made me feel alive

and he resents that I agreed he was ‘clingy’ though he wasn’t .

I was such afool for saying anything

yes, he  can survivve without me, but I don’t want to be away from him

so I guessthat makes me the shitty one, the codependent one.

and it’s funny because

these are the things that you just have to deal with

and the more this progresses, the more untrustworthy 9i look

so it’s just that it doesn’t maatter what i ay, i think.

maybe that’s not the right attitude i have

but it takes me a while to process

I want to love him

but the reality is  I really am loose.

I really am a barista and tooold to be living with my parents.

I really am very much a low-wage worker

and there’s just now escape. there’s no escape in real life

all the jokes about chopping me up and putting me in a fridge

about knocking me up when I’m sleeping

and all of the fact that I must accept the birthcontrol thing

that sponges don’t mean shit

that he just wants me to stop having the neurosis and stop crying and just work back to what it was.

 And I want that too.

And I told him that I want to die because I do.

I really don’t want to exist in this complicated world.

things are complicated, but his entire point is that I brought it all on myself

just like thom york in that radiohead song

not my intention, but i did

and somehow, I am going to be heidi klum about it

and so I will talk to the guy that prescribes me medications

and I somehow will transmute this, whether I numb myself or not

and stay cheerful

nd only confide in a therapist

because i am not ever going to confide in some dumbass coworkers

 because I can admit that i was petty

and so how am i going to keep myself happy

he is tired and wants it simple and is in defense mode

and that real love is hard, and it is real love

and i just feel beneath him and he won’t accept that and he’s treating me as such now.

he sees this as all of my weaknesses i think ad he doesn’t tolerate it i think

and so how am i supposed to confide in him or anyone else now

how am i supposed to be enguine?

because if I could wake up tomorrow I would be someone else or I just just wouldn’t wake up

what is wrong with you, he says

as if I am supposed to know

as if I can always logically delineate all the symptoms and erros

erros*

I don’t even resent him for it.

 I just wnat to know why everything happens so immediately

and you know who I can confide in?

god.

and no one on the internet

I’m not alone. but I’m fine alone

lately I’ve just been feeling so empty

and I will never forget

this bullshit.

jbut I forgive myself for finally getting the rest of my naivete

he feels as if he is suffering from me

and no apology can really do it justice

but I know I’ll never find another man like him, regardless of what happens.

He is truly unique.

and I am truly myself

abd yet I think I have no more words to say

words just hurt people’s feelings and I”m tired of the defensiveness

i don’t know hwat the progress is that I’m going to make.

but I’m going to make it

and he doesn’t want me to feel guilty or do the resentment mindset

i just feel really put on the spot

so.

I am going to wave a magic wand

 and I will learn from this, regardles

and I’m going to walk a labrynth somewhere.

because I am a witness and if god will allow me, I will talk to god

there is no point of defense, is there

even defending yourself gets you into trouble.

so what is the point

mad people are mad

this is not a joke? I am not a joke.

my feelings are valid.

 i’ll just take more benzos

and move on and pray

nd move on to a different conciousness

 and set a ddifferent tone

and i love him

and i love his parents

and i love my parents’

and ll the problems make me human

and he can’t tolerate this cycle repeating over the past week

so I will sleep

and I will just now know

how I got here or why

despite astrology or numerology

it’s just learning

and i know he doesn’t want me to feel guilty

but the things is that I’m open to the learning

i will turn myself into a book

and quietly read the pages

 lik you do as a nomad in a library

and you fall in love with the story or the information

and as the patience of other seems to waver

you find love for yourself and sleep

and you wish them sleep

and you love on who you can

the patience is just strained

i’m so tired of being a barista

I htink that’s why I said anything to anyone in the first pkace

me and my loose lips

they just keep getting me into trouble

and I want someone to see and relate

and then there’s always that one person

or those multiple cases

in whihc the damage is doene

 and so

if i could pay him back

 if I could pay them all back

if I could keep from bringing them own

down

I would

If I could rest my eyes

and never wake up

and no that all of it has been taken care of

i would

if I could stop my neurosis

and if I could change the pick ap art, I owuld

would

and if I could assert myself

and be logical

and protect myself I would

and you kow, its never fair

and so

I hold it in

like the elementary chool teacher said I shouldn’t

ithere is now right to words

no right to sharing or publicising them

no =right to asking for them to be understood

no advocating.

there are the puffy eyes from crying

 and people not accepting that sometimes you just need to cry

i have a lot of memories

i’d rather dies with this good ones now

and you know

its not becasue of my beloved boyfriend who is angry and in defensive mode

there is no reason for anything

i am will to give my spirit

and all my words and feelings and thoughs might as well have been done in vain.

but this was all an experience

 you know.

afunny thing

It’s not thtat i can’t keep doing it

but I hate my job

and I want more than this

and I’d like to have those fulfiling things back

and i’d like to have the tone in my voice to be aced.

i’d like to have my finances cleared and my own car and moved out

and I appreciate all the pushing he’s done.

he’s been suoportive

 and he wants to be supportive

but he doesn’t want the bullshit

and I am sofull of bullshit

and he doesn’t beleive i stop

so I can’t shitpost

I can’t talk

and I can’t a magic fairy godmother therapist to magiclaly appear

to give an idea of what the fuck is wrong with me

and so it’s like another dissociateion

because i don’t even feel liek I’m here

i’m not even present

this life isn’t even reall

 and he’s just tired of me

not using my words

and that one time I cried on the floor writing poetry

and I couldn’t finish writing endlessly

because he wanted to talk

and I can never frame anything to discus

I just feel at a loss for words

and he alwasy has some kind of prroof that he’s righ

and i don’t care if he’s right

i don’t think either of us feel heard

 ad I really don’t know why i’m like this right now

but if shooting myself figurativel ywould solve this problem

if I could jumpt through some stupidass portal and become someone else who is better at saying everyhtin, maybe i would

but I can’t this is me.

shitposting

my feelings are valid just better not explained especially whe i can’t find a reason for them either

I love him, you know.

But it makes me feel like he doesn’t want tme around.

I think there’s something worth saving

but i’m damn tired.

I love hime

 and I have to have hope

for something

and do the work

to make it happen

 and just believe

that it will work itself out

or that I will work myself out

and then that all the cuts that I make

on the inside of my brain in my imagination

can prove that

 I have the restraint

that I’m not an animal

and he doesn’t want to suck ass

he doesn’t want

I don’t know what he wants or expects

but i literally feel stupid because I don’t know how to respond fast enough

[gsharm1]

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don't endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. 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. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offence with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it's a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google's biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

Compassion for the weak

Disparities are due to injustices

Humans are inherently cooperative

Change is good (unstable)

Open

Idealist

Right Biases

Respect for the strong/authority

Disparities are natural and just

Humans are inherently competitive

Change is dangerous (stable)

Closed

Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google's left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I'll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that's required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we're regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognisant of this, but it's far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren't just socially constructed because:

They're universal across human cultures

They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

The underlying traits are highly heritable

They're exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).

These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.

This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there's overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women's issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men's and women's personality traits." Because as "society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider." We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men's higher drive for status

We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Women on average are more cooperative

Allow those exhibiting cooperative behaviour to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average

Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.

The male gender role is currently inflexible

Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimising for Google — with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google's biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]

A high priority queue and special treatment for "diversity" candidates

Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for "diversity" candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

Reconsidering any set of people if it's not "diverse" enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivise illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We're told by senior leadership that what we're doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we're blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the "God > humans > environment" hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren't on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what's being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google's left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we're using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left's affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he's labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women's oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of "grass being greener on the other side"; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn't harbored the violent leftists protests that we're seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

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 require 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 extend 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 realise that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivise 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-emphasise 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, favour individuals similar to us, and harbour other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritise 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 [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what's said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google's Mountain View campus, I can't speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by "tech", I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I've seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivise the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn't going to overthrow their "capitalist oppressors," the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the "white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy."

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] "The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men's problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak."

[11] Political correctness is defined as "the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against," which makes it clear why it's a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

[pacificleo]

Googler’s Thought on Diversity

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. 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. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.

This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.

The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.

Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression

Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression

Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Compassion for the weak

Disparities are due to injustices

Humans are inherently cooperative

Change is good (unstable)

Open

Idealist

Right Biases

Respect for the strong/authority

Disparities are natural and just

Humans are inherently competitive

Change is dangerous (stable)

Closed

Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

They’re universal across human cultures

They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone

Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males

The underlying traits are highly heritable

They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Women, on average, have more:

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).

These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.

Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.

This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.

Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Women on average are more cooperative

Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.

Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average

Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.

The male gender role is currently inflexible

Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5]

A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates

Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate

Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6]

These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

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 require 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 extend 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 offense 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 [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.