I'm glad to see that people are admitting that the memo wasn't a screed after all, and pointing out that Damore brought up some good points that are worth discu

I'm glad to see that people are admitting that the memo wasn't a screed after all, and pointing out that Damore brought up some good points that are worth discussing. But I would like to push back on the idea that it was poorly written. Is he an expert in these fields? No. Was his memo completely unassailable? No. Did he anticipate every possible response? No. But he was still quite careful about the conclusions he was trying to draw from the research, and a number of scientists from different fields have all defended the research he cites (to be fair, many criticize the research, too). If his opponents and critics truly value dialogue, they'll show it by actually engaging in dialogue.