> He wasn't participating in a rigorous exchange of criticism in philosophy or politics. Um, his memo was intrinsically political. The matters of policy of a c

> He wasn't participating in a rigorous exchange of criticism in philosophy or politics. Um, his memo was intrinsically political. The matters of policy of a company are political matters. Therefore it is completely valid to scrutinize it politically and of course at a serious level which integrates it into the surrounding context. > No, what you described is completely arbitrary. No, not really. If it was completely arbitrary then I would be considering things like "Well James Damore didn't mention the ongoing debate on ham and pineapple pizza and clearly shows his bias in doing so". There is an inherent context to his memo that is completely obvious to everyone involved as evidenced by the fact that literally every side in the discussion involving it makes some sort of connection to that context. On the side defending him, usually calling people who condemn his memo as irrational or the intolerant left, or some-such hostile dismissal. > Right, "rigorous" and "critical" debate. No pure ad-hominems to see here. Move along. Ad hominem is "James Damore is a doofus, therefore he's wrong". "James Damore is wrong, and because he is wrong in this way, he's a doofus", on the other hand, is not ad hominem. The only thing more odious than whipping out the latin is doing it incorrectly. From all the digital ink spilled on the topic, I have concluded that there are only a very small group of people defending him that earnestly consider the idea that he fucked up. The most common discourse is to simply presume that he didn't and then demand that everyone engage with him and his memo on their terms. Yawn. > Just making shit up and attributing it to your opponent is the opposite of "intellectually" rigorous. It maybe ideologically rigorous, but that's about it. James Damore's arguments are neither novel nor exemplary. The fact that he A) insists that he's being shut out of conversation and B) proceeds to make the same exact argument that has been discussed ad nauseum without bringing anything new to the table is telling. Everyone has already met a James Damore; they don't need another.