Re:A Biologist's Take on the Google Diversity Memo
by throwmoralsaway on Thursday August 10, 2017 @07:53PM
(#14985463)
when a person uses what they have inferred is an "implicit model" to shoot down another person's argument, that's prettttttty shittttty.
when a person spend a lot of time rebutting about something that was not in the original argument (performance assertions are entirely absent, but that's the major focus here) that's pretttttty shitttty.
can we just have a moratorium on bad arguments about this? i don't know why we need the moral flogging from people who can't even keep what was said straight.
Re:A Biologist's Take on the Google Diversity Memo
by lliamander on Thursday August 10, 2017 @08:08PM
(#14985549)
> The article perniciously misrepresents the nature and significance of known sex differences to advance what appears to be a covert alt-right agenda.
Good grief. I'm all for people offering argument and critique, and I feel like there is a lot of useful stuff in this article, but claiming that a carefully worded essay (by a "lay person") on the subject of diversity from a non-radically progressive point of view is really covert fascism makes OP look like a political hack.
No mainstream conservative or libertarian is going to take that statement seriously. I'm still going to finish reviewing the arguments and evidence provided, but who could trust that the OP is really giving us, the audience, the whole picture?
For a saner discussion of the matter, see the debate between Scott Alexander and Adam Grant[0].
Re:A Biologist's Take on the Google Diversity Memo
by Hasknewbie on Thursday August 10, 2017 @08:22PM
(#14985622)
She actually addresses the 'fascism' part toward the end, noting that Memo-man assigned specific moral values (and excluded other) to what he labels conservatism, but that specific set of values actually matches fascism. I do not take this to mean that the guy explicitly (or consciously) is facist, but that his values lean that way.
when a person spend a lot of time rebutting about something that was not in the original argument (performance assertions are entirely absent, but that's the major focus here) that's pretttttty shitttty.
can we just have a moratorium on bad arguments about this? i don't know why we need the moral flogging from people who can't even keep what was said straight.
I worry that marking this dupe will just kill the take, but c'est la vie.
Good grief. I'm all for people offering argument and critique, and I feel like there is a lot of useful stuff in this article, but claiming that a carefully worded essay (by a "lay person") on the subject of diversity from a non-radically progressive point of view is really covert fascism makes OP look like a political hack.
No mainstream conservative or libertarian is going to take that statement seriously. I'm still going to finish reviewing the arguments and evidence provided, but who could trust that the OP is really giving us, the audience, the whole picture?
For a saner discussion of the matter, see the debate between Scott Alexander and Adam Grant[0].
[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...