5 ms·

And also assume anything you say can/will be purposefully taken out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological c

by banads 6y ago

And also assume anything you say can/will be purposefully taken out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological crusade, or to generate revenue for a dying industry which is incentivized to cater to the lowest common denominator just to survive.

jlebar 6y ago
Literally his whole memo was posted online, in full. I struggle to understand the context that was missing.
- hackissimo123 6y ago
  The first website to publish his memo (Gizmodo) removed all the graphs and citations, meaning that a great many people who read the memo did not read it in full.
  - jlebar 6y ago
    And to you this constitutes reporting that was "purposefully out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological crusade"?
    - hackissimo123 6y ago
      Well I wouldn't put it that strongly (I didn't write the post you're quoting), but it hardly demonstrates journalistic integrity. (But then what would you expect from a site that's just Gawker rebranded?) For an example of "reporting" that comes closer to what you describe in your quote, I'd point to the pile of hot garbage that former Google exec (and deranged lunatic) Yonatan Zunger posted on Medium.com, which was very widely shared and cited in the weeks following Damoregate.
      - jlebar 6y ago
        Suppose we had data that we agreed was reliable showing that women software engineers who had read Damore's memo and Yonatan's post would overwhelmingly be unwilling to work with Damore and overwhelmingly be willing to work with Yonatan. I'm not saying I have this data, but just hypothetically, suppose we did. Would this at all influence your judgements (e.g. "deranged lunatic") of them? Why or why not?
        hackissimo123 6y ago
        Yes, it would. I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against - all I said was that Gizmodo stripped out the citations from Damore's memo. As for Yonatan, if you don't believe he's a deranged lunatic go read the insane diatribes he was posting in 2017 about how Trump is literally Hitler and that Muslims and Latinos needed to flee the country as soon as possible for their own safety. The man is detached from reality. It disturbs me that someone so psychotic was able to occupy a senior position at Google.
- banads 6y ago
  What percentage of people publicly criticizing the memo and attacking Damore do you think actually read it in full? Worth noting the first couple outlets (Vice, Gizmodo) did not post the full memo when they dropped the story.
  - acdha 6y ago
    Probably as high a percentage as his supporters. Trying to deflect criticism by saying people hadn’t read it was a common way to avoid critically thinking about it, and it became comical when people were making very specific comments which clearly indicated familiarity. I remember someone writing a very detailed critique of the way it was oversold it as based on science despite misrepresenting the scientific consensus[1], and even then you could easily find people saying that the reason she didn’t agree with him was that she hadn’t read it or that buzzfeed published the text first without charts, even when she was discussing the original studies he was claiming as support. 1. https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boots-on-what-the-evidence-says-about-mr-damores-google-memo-bc93c8b2fdb9 https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boot...
  - jlebar 6y ago
    How does the fact that people criticized the memo without reading it in full speak to OP's point about the memo having been taken out of context? I'll also suggest, reading this memo was incredibly painful for many of my female colleagues and friends inside and outside of Google. I don't think they should have to read the entire thing carefully in order to have an opinion on it. Indeed, I am not a well-read expert in many schools of thought that I nonetheless object to. > Worth noting the first couple outlets (Vice, Gizmodo) did not post the full memo when they dropped the story. OP's claim was that this was intentional with the goal of creating sensational clickbait. I guess the idea is, the full memo was tamer and, had it not been excerpted, people would not have reacted as strongly. Do you agree with this?
    - banads 6y ago
      Yes of course if it had not been excerpted and retitled as "Anti-diversity memo", people would have been less primed to have a knee jerk reaction, or to even click the link in the first place. >How does the fact that people criticized the memo without reading it in full speak to OP's point about the memo having been taken out of context? Because you can't begin to know what someone meant unless you read what they wrote.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- kortilla 6y ago
  The memo was, but very few people read that and instead read what was spoon fed to them by their ideological rag of choice. Look how many comments on this HN post alone claim he said things he didn’t (the google women engineers were worse, women can’t code, all women are neurotic, etc).

by banads 6y ago

jlebar 6y ago

Literally his whole memo was posted online, in full. I struggle to understand the context that was missing.

hackissimo123 6y ago
The first website to publish his memo (Gizmodo) removed all the graphs and citations, meaning that a great many people who read the memo did not read it in full.
- jlebar 6y ago
  And to you this constitutes reporting that was "purposefully out of context and twisted in order to create rage click bait to satisfy someone's ideological crusade"?
  - hackissimo123 6y ago
    Well I wouldn't put it that strongly (I didn't write the post you're quoting), but it hardly demonstrates journalistic integrity. (But then what would you expect from a site that's just Gawker rebranded?) For an example of "reporting" that comes closer to what you describe in your quote, I'd point to the pile of hot garbage that former Google exec (and deranged lunatic) Yonatan Zunger posted on Medium.com, which was very widely shared and cited in the weeks following Damoregate.
    - jlebar 6y ago
      Suppose we had data that we agreed was reliable showing that women software engineers who had read Damore's memo and Yonatan's post would overwhelmingly be unwilling to work with Damore and overwhelmingly be willing to work with Yonatan. I'm not saying I have this data, but just hypothetically, suppose we did. Would this at all influence your judgements (e.g. "deranged lunatic") of them? Why or why not?
      - hackissimo123 6y ago
        Yes, it would. I'm not sure what you think you're arguing against - all I said was that Gizmodo stripped out the citations from Damore's memo. As for Yonatan, if you don't believe he's a deranged lunatic go read the insane diatribes he was posting in 2017 about how Trump is literally Hitler and that Muslims and Latinos needed to flee the country as soon as possible for their own safety. The man is detached from reality. It disturbs me that someone so psychotic was able to occupy a senior position at Google.
banads 6y ago
What percentage of people publicly criticizing the memo and attacking Damore do you think actually read it in full? Worth noting the first couple outlets (Vice, Gizmodo) did not post the full memo when they dropped the story.
- acdha 6y ago
  Probably as high a percentage as his supporters. Trying to deflect criticism by saying people hadn’t read it was a common way to avoid critically thinking about it, and it became comical when people were making very specific comments which clearly indicated familiarity. I remember someone writing a very detailed critique of the way it was oversold it as based on science despite misrepresenting the scientific consensus[1], and even then you could easily find people saying that the reason she didn’t agree with him was that she hadn’t read it or that buzzfeed published the text first without charts, even when she was discussing the original studies he was claiming as support. 1. https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boots-on-what-the-evidence-says-about-mr-damores-google-memo-bc93c8b2fdb9 https://medium.com/@tweetingmouse/the-truth-has-got-its-boot...
- jlebar 6y ago
  How does the fact that people criticized the memo without reading it in full speak to OP's point about the memo having been taken out of context? I'll also suggest, reading this memo was incredibly painful for many of my female colleagues and friends inside and outside of Google. I don't think they should have to read the entire thing carefully in order to have an opinion on it. Indeed, I am not a well-read expert in many schools of thought that I nonetheless object to. > Worth noting the first couple outlets (Vice, Gizmodo) did not post the full memo when they dropped the story. OP's claim was that this was intentional with the goal of creating sensational clickbait. I guess the idea is, the full memo was tamer and, had it not been excerpted, people would not have reacted as strongly. Do you agree with this?
  - banads 6y ago
    Yes of course if it had not been excerpted and retitled as "Anti-diversity memo", people would have been less primed to have a knee jerk reaction, or to even click the link in the first place. >How does the fact that people criticized the memo without reading it in full speak to OP's point about the memo having been taken out of context? Because you can't begin to know what someone meant unless you read what they wrote.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
kortilla 6y ago
The memo was, but very few people read that and instead read what was spoon fed to them by their ideological rag of choice. Look how many comments on this HN post alone claim he said things he didn’t (the google women engineers were worse, women can’t code, all women are neurotic, etc).