There are a couple of reasons people are so quick to claim other people didn't read the memo verbatim. The first being that the first major publication to run with it, and the biggest one here on HN, was the verge's article where citations and graphs were stripped away from it.

The other is that is it often given such uncharitable descriptions that people who have read it simply can't believe the hate levied at it comes from actually having read the thing. I've actually talked this whole topic through for hours back and forth with someone who is very against the memo, but even they they would call it a sexist manifesto. That sort of thing comes across as off the cuff criticism by people who haven't read the thing.

There are many people who’ve read it and reached the same conclusion about his claims. Simply accusing people of not having read it – or the other standard talking point of claiming that the citations somehow completely change the meaning – is a dishonest way to avoid engaging with those criticisms. If they’re wrong, it should be easy to demonstrate that or find a statement by Damore that he didn’t intend his words to be read that way.

Sure thing. He says as such during his interview with Joe Rogan. If your claim is that he intends to present the idea that women are inferior in this field, that interview contradicts it.

Right, so that would be the thing to talk about rather falsely accusing people of not reading his original memo — it was certainly sloppy enough to be possible that the way many people read it was not how he originally intended.

If he's made direct statements rejecting biological determinism it should be easy enough to cite them — and it'd be useful to do so to avoid distraction when his supporters try to rehash the arguments in favor of that position.

You do no get to decide what contributes and what does not beyond your +-1. you do not have the moral high ground when you are repeating lies. It is clear to me that anyone that has read the memo, and is not laying will not describe it the way DanHulton did. Seems to me that what ever conversation you want to have it should not be based on falsehoods.

I read it, and I think DanHulton described it in pretty much the same way I would. The charts struck me as lacking meaningful context, and loose correlations were treated as logical, causal relationships in support for discriminatory hypotheses, reading like a case study in how to fallaciously present opinion as fact through charts and statistics.