3 ms·

I had a whole thing written out here, but I don't really think you'll understand it. summed up, this isn't an academic debate about logic and evidence. this con

I had a whole thing written out here, but I don't really think you'll understand it. summed up, this isn't an academic debate about logic and evidence. this conversation has real world consequences for real people. if you want to discuss biology there's forums for that. what this was, was not an evidence based debate. it was an employee sabotaging his employer, sobataging his colleagues, and utterly failing to understand the consequences of his actions. there are places to discuss the sometimes uncomfortable facts an earnest pursuit of the truth may sometimes unearth. a circulated memo about how unfair you think your company's employment policies are is not the proper forum.

beaconstudios 9y ago
every political point of contention has real world consequences for real people. The whole point is that we try to approach fairness from a rational standpoint so that people aren't being treated badly based on their gender, sex or the colour of their skin - and this whole debate centers around whether diversity initiatives are fair because they counteract inherent systemic sexism or if they're actually countering natural gender predispositions and thus being unfair by giving one gender a leg-up over the other.