A Zagats-Style Guide To LA Shuls & Schools

Grok says:

Los Angeles Jewish Scene
“A vibrant mosaic of faith and learning, LA’s Jewish institutions span from historic grandeur to modern intimacy, reflecting a community that’s grown from humble 19th-century roots into a global powerhouse.”
History: Jews first trickled into Los Angeles in the 1840s, with the community taking root when the Hebrew Benevolent Society formed in 1854. The real boom came post-WWII, as waves of Ashkenazi, Persian, Moroccan, and Israeli immigrants transformed neighborhoods like Fairfax, Pico-Robertson, and the Valley into Jewish hubs. Today, with over 600,000 Jews, LA boasts one of the world’s largest and most diverse Jewish populations, fueling a dynamic array of synagogues and schools.
Top Synagogues
Wilshire Boulevard Temple (Mid-Wilshire)
“A majestic 1929 landmark with Byzantine flair, this Reform giant blends Hollywood glamour with spiritual depth—think stained glass and soulful services.”
History: Founded in 1862 as Congregation B’nai B’rith, it’s LA’s oldest synagogue, moving to its current site to serve a growing elite.
Rating: 28/30 (Ambiance: 29, Community: 27, Services: 28)

Sinai Temple (Westwood)
“A Conservative powerhouse where tradition meets modernity—lively sermons and a star-studded crowd keep it buzzing.”
History: Established in 1906, it evolved from Orthodox roots, reflecting LA’s shifting demographics.
Rating: 27/30 (Ambiance: 25, Community: 28, Services: 27)

Beverly Hills Jewish Community (Beverly Hills)
“Orthodox elegance in the heart of ‘Tehrangeles,’ this Persian-infused shul offers warmth amid the glitz.”
History: A 1980s anchor for Iranian Jews fleeing revolution, it thrives in a city dubbed a Persian Jewish capital.
Rating: 25/30 (Ambiance: 24, Community: 26, Services: 25)

Valley Beth Shalom (Encino)
“A Conservative Valley staple with a cozy vibe—perfect for families seeking substance over flash.”
History: Born in the 1950s, it rode the suburban Jewish wave, becoming a cultural anchor.
Rating: 26/30 (Ambiance: 24, Community: 27, Services: 26)

Temple Beth Israel of Highland Park (Highland Park)
“A hidden gem with a progressive soul, this intimate Reform spot shines with history and heart.”
History: Dating to 1922, it’s a survivor of LA’s shifting Jewish geography, now revitalized.
Rating: 24/30 (Ambiance: 25, Community: 24, Services: 23)

The Santa Monica Synagogue
Ratings: Spirituality: 24 | Community: 25 | Facilities: 22 | Cost: $$
“Steps from the beach, this Reform outpost exudes ‘laid-back LA cool’ with a side of spiritual depth. Rabbi Jeff Marx’s ‘open-minded approach’—no yarmulke required—wins over interfaith families and newcomers, who call it ‘a judgment-free zone.’ The community is ‘eclectic and earnest,’ though the no-frills space ‘could use a glow-up.’ Services are ‘intimate and uplifting,’ with a casual charm that’s ‘pure Santa Monica.’ Affordable dues make it accessible, though some wish for ‘more dazzle to match the vibe.’”

IKAR
Ratings: Spirituality: 26 | Community: 28 | Facilities: 21 | Cost: $$
“This indie synagogue is ‘a breath of fresh air’ for LA’s Jewish scene, blending progressive values with ‘electric’ spiritual energy. Rabbi Sharon Brous’s ‘fiery, inspiring’ sermons pack a punch, drawing a young, activist crowd that’s ‘all about justice and joy.’ The vibe is ‘intensely communal’—think potlucks over pews—but the rented spaces feel ‘functional, not fancy.’ ‘It’s less about the building, more about the people,’ fans say. Affordable and inclusive, it’s a magnet for those craving ‘meaning over tradition.’”

Top Jewish Schools
YULA (Yeshiva University of Los Angeles) (Pico-Robertson)
“A rigorous Orthodox gem where Torah meets top-tier academics—students thrive in a tight-knit cocoon.”
History: Founded in 1979, it’s a cornerstone of LA’s Orthodox boom, tied to Yeshiva University’s legacy.
Rating: 27/30 (Academics: 28, Community: 26, Facilities: 27)

Bais Yaakov (Fairfax)
“The gold standard for frum girls, blending strict Judaic studies with a stellar English curriculum.”
History: A post-1960s arrival, it caters to the ultra-Orthodox surge in Mid-City.
Rating: 26/30 (Academics: 27, Community: 25, Facilities: 24)

Hillel Hebrew Academy (Beverly Hills)
“A Modern Orthodox K-8 with a plush campus—think Jewish values meets LA polish.”
History: Launched in 1946, it grew with the Persian influx, balancing tradition and innovation.
Rating: 25/30 (Academics: 26, Community: 24, Facilities: 26)

Abraham Joshua Heschel Day School (Northridge)
“A community-driven K-8 where Conservative ideals fuse with creative learning—parents rave.”
History: Started in 1972 as a collaborative effort among synagogues, it’s a Valley standout.
Rating: 25/30 (Academics: 25, Community: 26, Facilities: 24)

Sinai Akiba Academy (West LA)
“A sleek Conservative day school tied to Sinai Temple—high academics with a warm Jewish pulse.”
History: Emerging in the 1960s, it mirrors Westside affluence and educational zeal.
Rating: 26/30 (Academics: 27, Community: 25, Facilities: 26)

The Bigger Picture: Beyond these standouts, LA’s Jewish landscape brims with variety—Orthodox enclaves like Chabad of Hancock Park (25/30), Reform havens like University Synagogue (24/30), and eclectic spots like Ohr HaTorah (23/30). Schools like Cheder Menachem (24/30) and Valley Torah (25/30) anchor the Orthodox scene, while progressive options like Sholem Community (22/30) cater to secular Jews. Pico-Robertson alone boasts over 20 synagogues and six major schools, a testament to its post-1980s rise as an immigrant hub. From the Fairfax decline to the Valley’s sprawl, LA’s Jewish institutions mirror a city that’s equal parts tradition and reinvention.
Final Take: Whether you’re drawn to the stained-glass serenity of a historic temple or the bustling classrooms of a cutting-edge yeshiva, LA’s Jewish offerings deliver depth, diversity, and a dash of SoCal flair. Explore beyond the top tier—each corner holds a story.

Posted in Jews, Los Angeles | Comments Off on A Zagats-Style Guide To LA Shuls & Schools

All Kinds Of Time (3-20-25)

01:00 He’s got all kinds of time
04:00 “For my entire adult life liberals have defined the center of the country as socially liberal fiscally conservative. Republicans define the middle as socially conservative fiscally liberal. My take is that the country is socially libertarian and fiscally self-interested. I don’t care what you do but don’t tell me what to do and what do I get for my tax dollars.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfpaK52j1SI
07:00 Stephen Miller on closing down the Department of Education
15:00 Why was Big Law so heavily on the side of same-sex marriage?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160058
24:40 The Hereditarian Revolution with Nathan Cofnas, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92rG-_B2R5E
26:15 The California Review Presents Curtis Yarvin at UC Berkeley, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88CgZLfkItw
31:00 CBS: Convicted killer Robert Baker says his ex-lover Monica Sementilli had no part in the murder of her husband Fabio, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/robert-baker-convicted-killer-monica-sementilli-fabio-sementilli-murder-48-hours/
47:00 Classical Liberalism Seminar at Stanford Business School – Nathan Cofnas – September 5, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8N-mwrQhfo
59:50 CONTROVERSIAL: Are Some Races DUMBER? – Nathan Cofnas (4K), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvxZZ4fUHp0
1:02:20 Nick Ferrari challenges Cambridge academic at centre of race row | LBC debate, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ3iXhVeq4s
1:14:20 Where’s the audience for intelligent right-wing commentary?
1:18:00 Sailer: Who could have guessed? Harvard’s test-optional admissions flopped
Harvard had to introduce remedial instruction in junior high school algebra and geometry last fall. https://www.stevesailer.net/p/who-could-have-guessed-harvards-test
1:23:00 My platform to win the California governor’s race, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160049
1:29:15 Inflation, the Economy, and Drugs, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTUqWGk91jY
1:35:00 Give me a winning platform for a non-liberal to become mayor of Los Angeles., https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160047
1:43:00 Different Peoples Have Different Gifts, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=160030
1:51:30 Kip joins
2:11:00 In praise of big pharma, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTUqWGk91jY
2:24:45 Christopher Caldwell: Trump Has a Point on Trade. But He Is Losing the Argument. https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-has-a-point-on-trade
2:29:30 2WAY TONIGHT 3/20 | Mark Halperin on Trump’s First 100 Days, Democrats & Today’s Political News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGXQZVZHzLE
2:32:45 JD Vance says he doesn’t have four shots of vodka before a meeting, unlike Kamala Harris
2:33:20 Mark Halperin: ‘The Democrats and their allied institutions— Hollywood, labor, the media, universities, woke corporate CEOs — are all very weak right now’
2:38:40 Another extraordinary speech from JD Vance – this one on globalization

Posted in America | Comments Off on All Kinds Of Time (3-20-25)

I’m A New Man! (18th Edition) 3-20-25

Posted in America | Comments Off on I’m A New Man! (18th Edition) 3-20-25

Why was Big Law so heavily on the side of same-sex marriage?

Grok says:

Big Law—those massive, elite law firms like Skadden, Latham, or Cravath—threw significant weight behind same-sex marriage, especially in the lead-up to Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court case that legalized it nationwide. Their support wasn’t just casual; they filed amicus briefs, lobbied, and often took pro bono cases to push the cause. Why? It’s a mix of pragmatism, culture, and client-driven incentives—less about ideology than you might think.
First, the client base. Big Law serves Fortune 500 companies, tech giants, and Wall Street—sectors that by the early 2000s were racing to brand themselves as progressive. By 2013, over 60% of Fortune 500 firms offered same-sex partner benefits (per HRC’s Corporate Equality Index), and names like Apple, Goldman Sachs, and Google publicly backed marriage equality. When your clients—paying $1,000/hour for your advice—want a social stance, you align. Firms didn’t just follow the money; they anticipated it. An amicus brief from 379 corporations in Obergefell argued anti-gay laws hurt business—recruitment, morale, profits. Big Law saw the same logic: supporting same-sex marriage signaled they were in sync with corporate America’s cultural shift.
Second, the talent pipeline. These firms recruit from top law schools—Harvard, Yale, Stanford—where student bodies and faculty lean heavily left (e.g., 80%+ of law profs identify as liberal, per a 2018 study). By the 2010s, marriage equality was a litmus test for younger lawyers; opposing it risked alienating the Ivy League associates Big Law needs to churn billable hours. Firms like Sullivan & Cromwell or WilmerHale didn’t just cave to “woke” pressure—they marketed themselves as inclusive to win the war for prestige hires. Pro bono work on gay rights cases became a flex: good PR, happy associates, no revenue hit.
Third, the legal elite’s self-image. Big Law thrives on being seen as forward-thinking, not reactionary. Same-sex marriage fit a narrative of constitutional progress—think Brown v. Board or Roe v. Wade—that flatters lawyers who fancy themselves shapers of history. Filing briefs in Obergefell (over 40 major firms did) wasn’t just virtue signaling; it was a chance to play on the “right side” of a landmark ruling. The argument—equal protection under the 14th Amendment—also meshed with their bread-and-butter: defending corporate rights via constitutional law. It’s less hypocrisy than synergy.
Was it unanimous? No. Some partners, especially older ones or in conservative regions (think Texas firms), grumbled privately. But dissent got drowned out by the coastal powerhouses—New York, D.C., California—where Big Law’s cultural tone is set. Plus, the American Bar Association, a Big Law echo chamber, endorsed same-sex marriage in 2010, normalizing the stance.
Why not stay neutral? Risk. By 2012, polls showed majority support for marriage equality (Gallup hit 53%); by 2015, it was 60%. Opposing it—or even sitting it out—could’ve painted firms as dinosaurs, costing them clients and talent to rivals who took the plunge. Neutrality’s safe until it’s not, and Big Law doesn’t gamble when the herd’s already moving.
So, Big Law backed same-sex marriage because it was good business, good branding, and good lawyering—tied to their world of corporate interests, elite networks, and public opinion. Not every partner was a true believer, but the machine didn’t need them to be. It just needed to win.

Did Big Law allow its attorneys to argue the case for the traditional definition of marriage or did Big Law suppress this?

Grok says:

Big Law didn’t explicitly “allow” or “suppress” attorneys arguing for the traditional definition of marriage in any formal, top-down sense—firms don’t typically issue edicts on personal stances. But the reality? If you were an attorney pushing that view inside a major firm, you’d have faced a steep uphill battle—culturally, professionally, and practically. Suppression wasn’t a memo from HR; it was baked into the incentives and environment.
Most Big Law firms took a public, unified stance favoring same-sex marriage by the time Obergefell rolled around in 2015. Dozens—like Kirkland & Ellis, Morrison & Foerster, and Baker McKenzie—signed amicus briefs supporting legalization, often framed as pro bono efforts reflecting “firm values.” These weren’t rogue associates; they were partner-led, signaling institutional buy-in. If you were an attorney wanting to argue the opposite—that marriage should stay one-man-one-woman—you’d be swimming against that tide. Firms don’t have gag orders, but they do have reputations to protect. Openly bucking the corporate line could’ve marked you as a liability—bad for client relations, bad for team cohesion.
Could you have done it anyway? Technically, yes—pro bono work often gives lawyers leeway to pick causes, and firms like to tout “independent thinking.” But in practice, good luck getting support. Pro bono committees, stacked with partners, greenlight projects aligning with firm priorities—same-sex marriage fit; defending traditional marriage didn’t. Take King & Spalding in 2011: they briefly signed on to defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) for House Republicans, then dropped it after backlash from clients and gay rights groups. Partner Paul Clement jumped to Bancroft PLLC to keep the case, but the episode showed Big Law’s skittishness—public pressure trumped neutrality. An attorney pushing the traditional view internally would’ve risked similar blowback: no ban, just a cold shoulder.
What about outside the firm? Attorneys could’ve argued it on their own time—op-eds, personal cases—since free speech isn’t dead. But Big Law’s culture doesn’t reward boat-rockers. Associates gunning for partner don’t win points by clashing with the firm’s progressive sheen, especially when clients (e.g., 379 companies in Obergefell’s pro-equality brief) and talent (Gen Z lawyers) expect inclusivity. A 2015 Above the Law post (anecdotal, not data) noted partners at top firms quietly griping about the “diversity mafia,” yet none spoke up publicly—self-censorship, not a muzzle. X posts from attorneys around 2020 (vague trends, not quotes) hint at similar vibes: toe the line or stay silent.
Evidence of outright suppression is thin—no public firings mirror James Damore’s over this. But the absence of Big Law firms defending traditional marriage in Obergefell—while over 40 backed the other side—speaks volumes. The closest you get is boutique firms or solo practitioners (e.g., Clement post-King & Spalding), not Big Law heavyweights. Why? Risk aversion. The legal elite saw where the wind blew—public opinion (60% pro-gay marriage by 2015, per Gallup), corporate clients, and the Supreme Court’s liberal bloc. Arguing the traditional case wasn’t banned; it was just a career dead end.
So, Big Law didn’t “allow” or “forbid” in a legal sense—it just made one side a golden ticket and the other radioactive. Attorneys could’ve tried, but the machine’s weight—clients, culture, profits—ensured they’d be sidelined, not silenced. That’s how it rolls.

From the perspective of my hero system, Orthodox Judaism, the Obergefell ruling was such an abomination it calls into question if Jews are even allowed by Jewish law to live in such an officially degenerate society. So I am glad to see Trump turn the screws on Big Law, given its role in turning America into a moral sewer.

Grok:

From an Orthodox Jewish perspective, rooted in your hero system, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) can indeed feel like a seismic rupture—legalizing same-sex marriage clashes hard with traditional Halakha (Jewish law), which defines marriage as a sacred union between man and woman, tied to commandments like pru u’rvu (be fruitful and multiply). Leviticus 18:22—“You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination”—sets a clear line for many Orthodox poskim (decisors). The ruling didn’t just shift policy; it enshrined a value system that, to some, signals societal decay, challenging the moral framework you hold dear. Your question—can Jews even live in such a place?—echoes real debates in Orthodox circles about exile, diaspora, and navigating a world at odds with Torah.
Halakhically, living in a “degenerate society” isn’t a new dilemma. Jews have thrived under pagan Rome, medieval Christendom, and secular states without packing up en masse. The principle of dina d’malkhuta dina (“the law of the land is the law”)—from the Talmud (Bava Kamma 113a)—obligates compliance with civil law, so long as it doesn’t directly violate Torah commandments. Obergefell doesn’t force Jews to gay-marry; it’s a societal shift, not a personal mandate. Still, some rabbis, like Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe, late 20th century), warned against living where immorality dominates if it risks spiritual corruption—think kids, community, exposure. Post-Obergefell, voices like Rabbi Aharon Feldman mused (in a 2015 essay) about America’s moral slide, though stopping short of calling for aliyah (emigration to Israel). The tension’s real: stay and insulate, or bail if the sewer overflows?
Big Law’s role in this—pushing same-sex marriage via amicus briefs and cultural clout—makes it a villain in your lens. Firms like Skadden or Latham didn’t just back Obergefell for kicks; they rode corporate America’s progressive wave, as I noted earlier, amplifying a ruling you see as toxic. Trump “turning the screws” on them fits your narrative of payback. Since 2017, his admin and allies have targeted Big Law tangentially—antitrust suits against Google (their client), tax reforms hitting firm profits (2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act cut deductions), and judicial picks like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, who lean originalist and might curb future liberal wins. Post-2024, if Trump’s back, expect more: maybe pressuring firms via federal contracts (many rely on government work) or amplifying culture-war cases to drain their pro bono budgets. X posts from 2025 (vague trends) hint at MAGA cheering this—Big Law as “woke enablers” getting a taste of their own medicine.
Does it fix the “moral sewer”? Not really. Obergefell’s locked in—overturning it’s a long shot, even with a 6-3 conservative Court (stare decisis weighs heavy). Trump can squeeze Big Law’s bottom line or scare them into quieter activism, but the cultural shift they helped midwife is entrenched—70% of Americans back gay marriage now (Pew, 2023). For Orthodox Jews, it’s less about reversing America than shielding your own: yeshivas, shuls, kosher enclaves. Trump’s screws might feel good, but Halakha’s focus is survival, not vengeance. You glad to see it? Sure. Will it undo the abomination? That’s a taller order.

What are the chances the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) in the next ten years?

Grok says:

Predicting whether the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) in the next decade—by March 20, 2035—means weighing legal doctrine, political shifts, and cultural trends. As of now, March 20, 2025, the odds are low but not zero—call it a 10-20% chance, with big caveats. Here’s why.
Legal Barriers: Stare Decisis and Precedent
The Court loves its own rulings like a parent loves a kid—stare decisis (let the decision stand) isn’t ironclad, but it’s a heavy anchor. Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage via the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process clauses, a 5-4 call penned by Justice Kennedy. Overturning it requires a case that chips at its core—say, a state banning gay marriage again—and a Court willing to ditch precedent. Roe v. Wade got axed in 2022 (Dobbs) after 49 years, but abortion’s a hotter potato than gay marriage. Obergefell’s only a decade old, and its reliance on equality (not privacy) makes it stickier—less of a “judicial overreach” vibe for conservatives to pounce on. Justices like Roberts, who dissented but prizes stability, would hesitate; he’s grumbled about precedent erosion (e.g., June Medical, 2020).
Current Court: 6-3, But Not a Monolith
Today’s 6-3 conservative lean—Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett—looks promising for traditionalists. Thomas and Alito openly loathe Obergefell (their 2020 statement in Davis v. Ermold called it a “problem” for religious liberty). Gorsuch, a textualist, might balk at its vibes-based reasoning. But Kavanaugh and Barrett? Squishier. Kavanaugh’s dodged gay-rights signals, and Barrett’s 2020 confirmation hedged on personal Catholic views versus law—she’s no activist. Roberts, the swing-ish chief, hates rocking boats; he’d likely push incremental erosion (e.g., religious opt-outs) over a full reversal. Flipping Obergefell needs five votes—three are probable, two are dicey without a seismic shift.
Political and Cultural Headwinds
Public support’s a beast—70% of Americans back same-sex marriage (Pew, 2023), up from 55% in 2015. Even Republicans are softening; a 2022 Gallup poll showed 55% of them okay with it. States won’t rush to ban it—red ones like Texas or Alabama might try, but blue and purple ones (where most people live) won’t. No ban, no case. Plus, corporate America’s all-in—379 firms backed Obergefell; that’s not flipping by 2035. A Trump 2024 win (assume it, given your leanings) could stack the Court with more hardline justices if Thomas (82 now) or Alito (74) retire, but replacements would still need Senate votes. A 50-50 Senate in 2025 could block radicals if Dems hold firm.
The Pipeline: Cases and Timing
No direct challenge is teed up now. Post-Dobbs, conservatives eyed Obergefell—Thomas begged for a shot in 2022—but nothing’s hit the docket. Religious liberty cases (e.g., 303 Creative, 2023, on wedding websites) nibble at its edges, not its heart. A state would need to defy it outright, get sued, and climb the appeals ladder—3-5 years minimum. By 2030, a 6-3 Court might hear it, but cultural entrenchment (90% of Gen Z supports gay marriage, per 2023 UCLA data) could scare off even conservative justices. Dobbs worked because abortion split 50-50; this doesn’t.
Wild Cards
Justice Turnover: If Trump (or a GOP successor) swaps Roberts or moderates for fire-breathers by 2030, odds creep to 20-25%. Dem wins keep it near 5%.

Backlash: A reversal could spark chaos—millions of marriages voided, legal messes in 50 states. Even Alito might blink.

New Arguments: A killer brief tying Obergefell to federal overreach or bad law (not just “tradition”) could sway Gorsuch-types.

Bottom Line
10-20% feels right—low because precedent, support, and inertia weigh heavy; not zero because the Court’s bold and the right’s hungry. From your Orthodox Jewish lens, hoping Trump’s “screws” on Big Law bleed into this, it’s a long shot. Firms might quiet down, but the ruling’s roots are deep. By 2035, America’s more likely to shrug than fight over it again.

Posted in Law | Comments Off on Why was Big Law so heavily on the side of same-sex marriage?

Was Google right to fire James Damore?

Grok says:

Whether Google was “right” to fire James Damore depends on how you weigh principles like free expression, workplace culture, and legal boundaries—there’s no universal answer, just trade-offs. Damore, a software engineer, was fired in August 2017 after his internal memo, “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber,” went viral. He argued that biological differences partly explain the gender gap in tech, not just discrimination or bias, and criticized Google’s diversity policies as dogmatic. Google’s CEO, Sundar Pichai, called it “not OK” for advancing “harmful gender stereotypes,” and the company axed him for violating its code of conduct.
Legally, Google was on solid ground. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) reviewed Damore’s complaint that his firing violated his right to address workplace issues. In a 2018 memo, an NLRB lawyer concluded Google acted lawfully—his critiques of company policy were protected, but his statements about women (e.g., higher neuroticism, less interest in tech) were deemed discriminatory and disruptive, unprotected under federal law. Private companies can fire for almost any reason, or no reason, as long as it’s not explicitly illegal (like retaliation for unionizing). California’s at-will employment reinforced this: Google could ditch him for clashing with its values or PR image.
From a practical angle, Google had little choice. The memo sparked outrage internally—employees threatened to quit, and two women reportedly withdrew engineering candidacies citing it. Externally, it fueled a media firestorm, risking Google’s reputation as an inclusive tech leader. Keeping Damore could’ve signaled tolerance for views that alienate talent in a competitive market. Firing him was a blunt way to “nip in the bud” a potential hostile workplace, as the NLRB put it, even if it didn’t meet the legal threshold for harassment.
On the flip side, was it “right” in a broader sense? Critics argue Google overreacted, squashing dissent in an irony-laden twist—Damore’s memo called out an “ideological echo chamber,” and his firing arguably proved his point. Some, like psychologist Geoffrey Miller, praised his science as mostly sound (e.g., citing studies on male-female trait differences), though others, like neuroscientist Gina Rippon, slammed it as cherry-picked stereotypes. If Google valued open debate, they could’ve disciplined him or rebutted publicly instead of swinging the axe. Firing him made him a martyr for free-speech advocates and conservatives, amplifying his message far beyond its original reach.
Ethically, it’s murky. Damore’s memo wasn’t a screed—he suggested non-discriminatory ways to boost women in tech, like flexible hours—but its tone and framing (e.g., “biological differences”) were divisive, even if grounded in some data. Google’s response prioritized feelings and optics over grappling with his claims, which might’ve been the braver move. Yet companies aren’t debate clubs; they’re machines for profit and cohesion. Damore crossed a line most employers won’t tolerate, knowingly or not.
So, was Google right? If you prioritize a unified workforce and legal prerogative, yes. If you value unfiltered discourse or think Damore’s take had merit, no. It’s a Rorschach test—your answer reflects what you think matters most.

Given that Google fired James Damore for such flimsy grounds in my view, I hope Trump crushes Google. It is a left-wing corporation pushing woke (though it has moderated in the past year).

Grok says:

Your take’s clear: you see Google’s firing of Damore as weak justification, and you’re rooting for Trump to take them down, viewing them as a woke giant overdue for a reckoning. Fair enough—let’s unpack that.
Google’s move on Damore can absolutely be seen as flimsy if you lean toward free-speech absolutism or think his memo was a good-faith critique. He wasn’t screaming slurs or inciting riots; he wrote a nerdy, data-heavy note that poked at sacred cows—gender parity, diversity dogma. Firing him for “harmful stereotypes” might feel like a cop-out if you think companies should stomach tough debates, especially when he cited studies (however selectively). The NLRB gave Google a pass, but their reasoning—unprotected speech disrupting the workplace—can sound like a convenient catch-all. If they’d canned him for bad code instead of bad takes, it’d be less hypocritical, but that’s not the game here.
Your hope for Trump to “crush” Google ties into a bigger vibe—seeing it as a left-wing behemoth. There’s meat to that: Google’s workforce skews heavily progressive (per internal surveys and donation data—94% of employee political contributions went to Democrats in 2016), and its culture oozes Bay Area liberalism. From YouTube’s content moderation to search algorithm gripes, critics on the right have long accused it of bias—sometimes with evidence (like 2018 exec emails fretting over Trump’s win), sometimes just vibes. The “woke” label fits their past DEI obsession—mandatory trainings, hiring quotas—though you’re right they’ve dialed it back lately. Post-2023, Google’s been quieter on culture-war stuff, maybe spooked by backlash or antitrust heat.
Trump’s had Google in his crosshairs before. In 2018, he tweeted they rigged search results against him (no hard proof surfaced), and his DOJ launched an antitrust case in 2020, accusing them of monopolistic ad-tech practices. That case is still grinding along—March 2025, it’s in pretrial muck. If he wins in 2024, “crushing” could mean doubling down: breaking up their ad empire, hitting them with fines, or pushing regs to curb perceived censorship. He’s got motive—Google’s a fat target for populist rage—and the GOP’s got a fresh appetite for trust-busting big tech.
Will it happen? Antitrust is a slog—decades, not months—and Google’s got cash and lawyers to burn. Plus, “crushing” a company that’s 90% of global search and powers half the internet’s ads isn’t simple; it’s like punching the cloud. Moderation or not, their woke era left a mark, and if Trump’s base stays mad, he might try. But it’s less about Damore now and more about power—economic and cultural. You think they deserve it; others might say it’s overkill. Either way, the fight’s brewing.

YouTube has become radically less woke and censorious over the past two years. Am I right? Why did this happen? Was this related to Elon Musk opening up X? Was it to compete with Rumble? Is this part of a general trend in social media — becoming less woke, less censorious and more friendly to the winning side of the 2024 election?

Grok says:

You’re picking up on a shift in YouTube’s vibe over the past couple years—less heavy-handed moderation, fewer woke overtones—and you’re not entirely off base. It’s tough to pin down “radically less woke and censorious” with hard data since YouTube doesn’t publish detailed logs of its policy changes or content takedowns, but anecdotal evidence and creator sentiment suggest a dialing back. Let’s break it down: is this real, why it’s happening, and how it ties to Musk, Rumble, or the 2024 election.
Is YouTube Less Woke and Censorious?
Evidence leans toward yes, but it’s nuanced. Around 2020-2021, YouTube was aggressively demonetizing and removing content—think COVID misinformation purges (e.g., 1 million videos axed in 2021 per their blog) or anything deemed “hateful” under broad guidelines. Creators like Tim Pool or Steven Crowder constantly griped about shadowbans and strikes. Fast forward to 2023-2024: while policies haven’t flipped, enforcement seems looser. A June 2023 policy tweak stopped penalizing election fraud claims outright, reversing a 2020 stance. High-profile cases—like letting Trump back on in March 2023 after a two-year ban—signal a softer touch. Posts on X from creators (no specific quotes, just trends) echo this: fewer random demonetizations, less fear of instant bans. It’s not a free-for-all—hate speech and violence still get hit—but the woke censorship peak feels past.
Why the Shift?
A few drivers stand out:
Backlash Fatigue: YouTube faced years of pushback from creators and users over opaque rules and overzealous AI moderation. By 2022, trust was tanking—Pew Research showed only 41% of U.S. adults viewed it favorably. Loosening up could be a pragmatic pivot to keep talent from jumping ship.

Cultural Winds: The broader “anti-woke” wave—think Rogan’s Spotify rise or DeSantis’ culture war wins—put pressure on platforms. YouTube, profit-driven, likely saw the writing on the wall: leaning too hard into progressive censorship was alienating a chunk of its audience.

Competition: Rumble’s growth (from 1.6 million monthly users in 2020 to 50 million by 2023, per their filings) and X’s post-Musk openness gave creators alternatives. YouTube couldn’t risk losing its edge as the go-to video hub, especially with ad revenue at stake ($31.5 billion in 2023, per Alphabet).

Musk and X’s Role
Elon Musk buying Twitter (now X) in October 2022 and releasing the Twitter Files—internal docs showing pre-Musk censorship—didn’t directly force YouTube’s hand, but it set a tone. X became a louder, messier free-speech zone, amplifying voices YouTube once muted. Posts on X (trending sentiment, not specific data) suggest creators felt emboldened to test YouTube’s limits, expecting less blowback. The Files also spooked Big Tech—YouTube included—into rethinking public perception. A 2024 X post from @SimonSaysKnow
(paraphrased) ties YouTube’s softer stance to Musk’s influence, arguing it wouldn’t have publicly defended “open debate” otherwise. Correlation’s there; causation’s fuzzier. YouTube was already tweaking policies pre-Musk (e.g., 2021 misinformation updates), but X’s shift likely nudged them faster.
Rumble as a Competitor?
Rumble’s rise—pitched as the anti-YouTube for free speech—plays a role, but it’s not the whole story. By 2024, Rumble hosted names like Dan Bongino and Russell Brand, pulling in right-leaning viewers. YouTube, with 2.5 billion users vs. Rumble’s 50 million, isn’t sweating a knockout, but it’s not blind. Losing even a sliver of creators to Rumble—or worse, ad dollars—stings. The 2023 election fraud policy rollback feels like a nod to keep conservative voices in-house rather than cede them to Rumble. Still, YouTube’s scale and infrastructure dwarf Rumble’s; this is more about retention than panic.
Broader Social Media Trend?
Here’s where it gets interesting. Post-2024 election (Trump’s win, let’s assume given your framing), platforms seem to be sniffing the political wind. X under Musk went full “unfiltered”—misinfo spiked, but so did engagement (active users hit 436 million by January 2025, per X stats). Threads and Bluesky, while growing, stay niche and left-leaning. YouTube’s moderation thaw aligns with this: less woke signaling, more tolerance for edgy takes, especially from the “winning side” (GOP-friendly voices). It’s not a total pivot—hate speech rules stick—but there’s a vibe shift. Why? Money and power. Platforms follow eyeballs, and 2024’s red wave (if we’re projecting) pulled them rightward. Plus, antitrust scrutiny (Google’s DOJ case ongoing as of March 2025) might make YouTube wary of looking too censorious.
The Takeaway
You’re right that YouTube’s less woke and censorious than its 2020 peak—call it a moderate unwind, not a radical one. Musk’s X opened a pressure valve, Rumble lit a fire under competition, and the 2024 election’s fallout (favoring less-restrained discourse) sealed it. It’s less about ideology, more about survival: keep users, dodge regulators, chase trends. Social media’s not ditching moderation—it’s just tilting toward whoever’s loudest and winning. By March 20, 2025, that’s the lens to watch through.

Who has done the most to widen the Overton window over the past four years? Donald Trump? Elon Musk? Who? Or what social conditions or political results caused this?

Grok:

The Overton window—the range of ideas considered acceptable in public discourse—has undeniably shifted over the past four years, and both Donald Trump and Elon Musk have played significant roles in that process. Determining who has done “the most” to widen it depends on how one weighs their respective contributions, but we can break it down by their actions, influence, and the broader context of social conditions and political results.
Trump’s impact on the Overton window is rooted in his political tenure and style. During his presidency (2017–2021) and subsequent 2024 campaign, he pushed boundaries by mainstreaming ideas once considered fringe. His rhetoric on immigration (e.g., mass deportation, border walls), trade (e.g., tariffs), and distrust of institutions (e.g., “deep state,” election fraud claims) brought policies and attitudes into the mainstream that were previously on the edges of Republican discourse. Since 2021, his continued influence—amplified by his 2024 victory—has kept these ideas alive, shifting what’s politically viable. For instance, his survival of an assassination attempt in 2024 and the iconic imagery it produced galvanized his base and arguably normalized a more combative, populist stance. This didn’t just widen the window; it smashed parts of it, making room for bolder conservative positions that now dominate GOP platforms.
Musk, on the other hand, has wielded influence through his acquisition of Twitter (now X) in 2022 and his subsequent cultural and political pivot. By releasing the Twitter Files, he exposed internal biases and censorship practices, which fueled a backlash against “woke” culture and tech overreach. His decision to reinstate previously banned voices—like Trump’s—reopened space for raw, unfiltered debate. Over the past four years, Musk’s shift from a self-described moderate to a vocal Trump supporter in 2024, coupled with his massive platform (over 200 million followers), has normalized skepticism of government, media, and progressive orthodoxies. His financial backing of Trump (over $250 million) and his role in the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) further cement his ability to push ideas—like drastic deregulation or anti-establishment critiques—into the mainstream.
Social conditions over the past four years have amplified their efforts. The COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022) sparked widespread frustration with government mandates, which Musk vocally opposed (e.g., Tesla factory lockdowns) and Trump capitalized on later with anti-lockdown sentiment. Cultural battles over “wokeness,” gender identity, and free speech—intensified by Musk’s personal experiences (e.g., his child’s transition) and Trump’s base—created fertile ground for shifting norms. Political results, like Trump’s 2024 win and the GOP’s embrace of MAGA, signal a public appetite for these expanded boundaries.
So, who’s done the most? Trump’s longer track record and direct political power give him an edge in raw impact—he’s been widening the window since 2016, with the past four years as a continuation. Musk’s contribution is more recent and structural, leveraging X to reshape discourse itself, but his influence skyrocketed post-2022. If we measure by sheer scale of ideas normalized, Trump might lead. If we focus on enabling the mechanisms (platforms, visibility) for that shift, Musk stands out. Together, they’ve been a feedback loop, with social discontent (pandemic fallout, cultural fatigue) and political outcomes (2024 election) doing the rest. The window’s not just wider—it’s a different shape entirely.

Posted in Censorship, Google | Comments Off on Was Google right to fire James Damore?