3 ms·

>I don't understand why this means that Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion. "Shouldn't have shared his opinion" and "should have shared his opinion in a

by mejari 9y ago

>I don't understand why this means that Damore shouldn't have shared his opinion. "Shouldn't have shared his opinion" and "should have shared his opinion in a different way" are two completely different things, and I don't see many people saying the first.

quilliellis 9y ago
I saw so many people saying the first (on sites like Medium and Facebook). Not on HN, though.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I feel like a lot of the statements in this thread are arguing the first.
humanrebar 9y ago
I think "should have shared his opinion in a different way" is moving the goalposts too far. I think anything that would have placated critics on this point would have neutered Damore's position. Can someone produce a "diversity culture" critic (for lack of a better term) who provides a good example for Damore? One that is well received across the board?
cookiecaper 9y ago
To be fair to Damore, his paper wasn't intended for wide publication. It was a quick internal write-up intended to generate discussion among people who already had some frame of reference for Damore's background and professional trajectory. There was very little chance he would've been mistaken for a biology professor within the Google Skeptics discussion group. A big four-paragraph disclaimer at the beginning would've been a big waste of everyone's time, and it could just as easily be interpreted as a sign of hostility or malfeasance. If people want to dislike something, there is an infinity of potential nits to fixate on. I've always been brash so I've been through the "delivery ringer" many times. The conclusion I've reached is that frequently, the only way to avoid it is to be so opaque and listless in your communication that people aren't sure what you meant. If you say something people don't like in a non-ambiguous way, they will be mad, and they will insist on finding a reason to dismiss it.

by mejari 9y ago

quilliellis 9y ago

I saw so many people saying the first (on sites like Medium and Facebook). Not on HN, though.

humanrebar 9y ago
I feel like a lot of the statements in this thread are arguing the first.

humanrebar 9y ago

I think "should have shared his opinion in a different way" is moving the goalposts too far. I think anything that would have placated critics on this point would have neutered Damore's position. Can someone produce a "diversity culture" critic (for lack of a better term) who provides a good example for Damore? One that is well received across the board?

cookiecaper 9y ago

To be fair to Damore, his paper wasn't intended for wide publication. It was a quick internal write-up intended to generate discussion among people who already had some frame of reference for Damore's background and professional trajectory. There was very little chance he would've been mistaken for a biology professor within the Google Skeptics discussion group. A big four-paragraph disclaimer at the beginning would've been a big waste of everyone's time, and it could just as easily be interpreted as a sign of hostility or malfeasance. If people want to dislike something, there is an infinity of potential nits to fixate on. I've always been brash so I've been through the "delivery ringer" many times. The conclusion I've reached is that frequently, the only way to avoid it is to be so opaque and listless in your communication that people aren't sure what you meant. If you say something people don't like in a non-ambiguous way, they will be mad, and they will insist on finding a reason to dismiss it.