3 ms·
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 labe
by 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 agoMuch like how I find the other replies to your last comment far more bothersome than anything you said...
- toxiccwm 9y agoWhat 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 agoI think your comment bears at least a passing resemblance to a pile of crocodile excrement, so I've decided to ignore it.