Pages 24-26 put him well in the conspiracy theory camp.
What I find interesting is that he uses a lot of contemporary citation information as an indicator of both success and quality, without mentioning the huge issues with citation indices - let alone his own work on trying to develop a 2nd degree factor for citation ranking (which was ostensibly what his uninvited talk was supposed to be about).
Oh using his own employment failure to a woman with less citations as a "case study" is just fucking hilarious (not to mention unethical).
Literally no citations on his "discrimination against women" slide, but manages seven on his "discrimination against men" slide? Stop it, the intentional biased framing is killing me!
If you're wondering why no one is "debating the data" it's because he knows that it's unreliable (
he's actually literally argued this), others who actually study cultural fields know that it's only a small part of the picture and every other person is rolling their eyes at the idea that citations are the only thing which contribute towards employment or success in the field.
Dude wrote a presentation designed to be controversial, presented it under false pretences and is then shocked when there are repercussions. There are literally dozens of ways that some of the information in there could have been framed that made it palatable and useful to the audience.
If he is being lynched then he picked the tree, hung the rope, lit the torches and sent out the invites - he just needed a hand kicking the stool out from under his feet.