4 ms·

> It isn't a good example. Damore wasn't "fired because of an offended woman". Regardless of what you think of Damore, that isn't close to accurate. We all nee

> It isn't a good example. Damore wasn't "fired because of an offended woman". Regardless of what you think of Damore, that isn't close to accurate. We all need to be much more careful about facts than that. I don't necessarily condone Damore's action (or Google's reaction, for that matter) but I'm incredulous that someone could suggest this is not accurate (well, except for the fact that it wasn't an individual woman). I'm interested to hear why you think this is inaccurate. I also feel it's absurd to characterize it as flamebait. It's directly relevant to the question under discussion - why gender issues are making men feel uncomfortable in the workplace. That doesn't mean their discomfort is justified - maybe you agree, maybe you don't. But flagging these comments indicates you feel that noone is even *allowed to discuss it openly.

dang 7y ago
> well, except for the fact that it wasn't an individual woman Except for? That's a major difference. As I said, we all need to take much greater care about facts than that. Bringing in a classic flamewar topic, when it isn't strictly relevant, is like dropping a bomb in the thread. The site guidelines ask people particularly not to do that. Classic flamewar topics are black holes that suck everything in, especially anything that drifts nearby. They need to be consciously resisted if we are not to rehearse the same flamewars over and over. Some people may want to do that, but it's off topic for Hacker News. > It's directly relevant to the question under discussion I don't agree. Perhaps it feels that way because "gender" plus "controversy", but the actual topic of this thread is distinct and remote from that. We need to make finer-grained, more precise distinctions, if we want to avoid a big fireball.
- avinium 7y ago
  If you think the Damore discussion has been done to death, then fair enough, I can understand the moderation decision. As to whether it's irrelevant to the overall discussion, I can understand your viewpoint - the article was specifically about sexual harassment, not broader "gender sensitivity" issues. I disagree, however, that it was a mischaracterization of, or irrelevant to, the specific comment I was responding to.

dang 7y ago

> well, except for the fact that it wasn't an individual woman Except for? That's a major difference. As I said, we all need to take much greater care about facts than that. Bringing in a classic flamewar topic, when it isn't strictly relevant, is like dropping a bomb in the thread. The site guidelines ask people particularly not to do that. Classic flamewar topics are black holes that suck everything in, especially anything that drifts nearby. They need to be consciously resisted if we are not to rehearse the same flamewars over and over. Some people may want to do that, but it's off topic for Hacker News. > It's directly relevant to the question under discussion I don't agree. Perhaps it feels that way because "gender" plus "controversy", but the actual topic of this thread is distinct and remote from that. We need to make finer-grained, more precise distinctions, if we want to avoid a big fireball.

avinium 7y ago
If you think the Damore discussion has been done to death, then fair enough, I can understand the moderation decision. As to whether it's irrelevant to the overall discussion, I can understand your viewpoint - the article was specifically about sexual harassment, not broader "gender sensitivity" issues. I disagree, however, that it was a mischaracterization of, or irrelevant to, the specific comment I was responding to.