3 ms·

No, he's using a biological justification to openly discuss different ways to foster diversity. This is one of his points: the most common argument against him

No, he's using a biological justification to openly discuss different ways to foster diversity. This is one of his points: the most common argument against him is just that you think he's a sexist, not because you don't think his ideas will actually foster any kind of diversity. And I don't understand that. The reaction here is the opposite of tolerance and diversity. edit: I'm going to give a personal example: I strongly supported legalizing gay marriage, but I also support the right of anyone to refuse to bake a gay wedding cake or to run a church and not perform gay marriages. And I've had numerous former friends chew me out and shun me for being "intolerant". It's that attitude that makes reasonable political discussions harder and harder (at least in the US right now) because it makes everyone fear to give up anything to reach a compromise or to even understand each other.

kristianc 9y ago
But we're back to discussing the reaction again. Which is a neat way of avoiding the content of the article itself. I have no particular need to apply the label of "sexist" to this guy. I have no opinion, nor enough information, to say whether he should be fired or not. I do think he's profoundly wrong though, and think his arguments about biological differences bear at least a passing resemblance to some wholly discredited arguments.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  >> he's trying to find a biological justification to exclude a class of people from a high-status career. >> avoiding the content of the article itself. That's what I'm talking about. I also think his ideas wouldn't be terribly effective, but I think villifying and dismissing him just for saying it does more harm than him saying it. That's why there are people focusing on the reaction. It doesn't really matter who the onus is on to justify his claims if you're not going to actually listen to anyone who disagrees with you anyway. And you can't claim you actually listened, because you explicitly said he was arguing in favor of excluding people based on class. That's what you heard from all of his suggestions to approach inclusion a different way.
  - TallGuyShort 9y ago
    Much like how I find the other replies to your last comment far more bothersome than anything you said...
- toxiccwm 9y ago
  What does "bear at least a passing resemblance to some wholly discredited arguments" mean? Is this the same sort of thinking that has people rabidly ferreting out "dogwhistles" in normal speech?
- greenshackle2 9y ago
  I think your comment bears at least a passing resemblance to a pile of crocodile excrement, so I've decided to ignore it.

kristianc 9y ago

But we're back to discussing the reaction again. Which is a neat way of avoiding the content of the article itself. I have no particular need to apply the label of "sexist" to this guy. I have no opinion, nor enough information, to say whether he should be fired or not. I do think he's profoundly wrong though, and think his arguments about biological differences bear at least a passing resemblance to some wholly discredited arguments.

TallGuyShort 9y ago
>> he's trying to find a biological justification to exclude a class of people from a high-status career. >> avoiding the content of the article itself. That's what I'm talking about. I also think his ideas wouldn't be terribly effective, but I think villifying and dismissing him just for saying it does more harm than him saying it. That's why there are people focusing on the reaction. It doesn't really matter who the onus is on to justify his claims if you're not going to actually listen to anyone who disagrees with you anyway. And you can't claim you actually listened, because you explicitly said he was arguing in favor of excluding people based on class. That's what you heard from all of his suggestions to approach inclusion a different way.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  Much like how I find the other replies to your last comment far more bothersome than anything you said...
toxiccwm 9y ago
What does "bear at least a passing resemblance to some wholly discredited arguments" mean? Is this the same sort of thinking that has people rabidly ferreting out "dogwhistles" in normal speech?
greenshackle2 9y ago
I think your comment bears at least a passing resemblance to a pile of crocodile excrement, so I've decided to ignore it.