2 ms·

> 2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're denying the sheer amount of negative media attention, all the outrage Tw

> 2. The "outrage mob" isn't real. How am I supposed to take you seriously when you're denying the sheer amount of negative media attention, all the outrage Tweets, and the general sentiment in online discussions like this one that are happening years later? We can discuss the extent of the outrage mob, but your idea that there's no outrage mob at all is baffling. > You know who got James Damore fired? Himself. No, he didn't get himself fired. His employer fired him. > It's especially telling that you, and people who defend him, attribute zero fault whatsoever to the person who actually wrote the memo. "Zero fault"? Your telepathy is way off, because I didn't say once that Damore has no fault. The outrage mob "isn't real", yet you are so quick to dismiss those who think that Damore is defensible.

thosakwe 7y ago
1. Calling it an outrage "mob" is dishonest, and that's why I say it doesn't exist. It's not mob mentality. Did it occur to you that there are reasons that many people could have been outraged by what he wrote? Calling it a "mob" is just you dismissing that. 2. Yes, he got himself fired. Nobody made him write that, and even after writing it, nobody made him post it on a large mailing list where an entire workforce could read it. 3. You don't think his actions were what caused him to get fired. So whose fault was it, if not his? You're more intent on making a statement against the "outrage mob" than actually acknowledging why doing what Damore did might get you fired at any company. Again, it's especially telling that you and the people who defend Damore attribute zero fault to the person who actually wrote the memo.
- ravenstine 7y ago
  > Calling it an outrage "mob" is dishonest > Again, it's especially telling that you and the people who defend attribute zero fault to the person who actually wrote the memo. I've been honest and I replied in good faith, and yet you just sidestep and lump me in with some made up group of people whom you say attribute "zero fault" to Damore. You didn't listen to me at all. You didn't even ask me what faults I would attribute to Damore after I denied your perception of what I'm thinking. Why should anyone have a conversation with you?
  - wpietri 7y ago
    If you're replying in good faith, you should either defend your "outrage mob" accusation or apologize for it.
    - ravenstine 7y ago
      So they can just dismiss things I say and pretend they can read my mind, but I am supposed to either defend or apologize for it because someone says so? EDIT: I mistakenly thought your comment was from the person I was having the conversation with.
      - wpietri 7y ago
        Thanks for the correction. That's an easy mistake to make here! I've done it myself.
- abstractbarista 7y ago
  It literally is a mob.

thosakwe 7y ago

1. Calling it an outrage "mob" is dishonest, and that's why I say it doesn't exist. It's not mob mentality. Did it occur to you that there are reasons that many people could have been outraged by what he wrote? Calling it a "mob" is just you dismissing that. 2. Yes, he got himself fired. Nobody made him write that, and even after writing it, nobody made him post it on a large mailing list where an entire workforce could read it. 3. You don't think his actions were what caused him to get fired. So whose fault was it, if not his? You're more intent on making a statement against the "outrage mob" than actually acknowledging why doing what Damore did might get you fired at any company. Again, it's especially telling that you and the people who defend Damore attribute zero fault to the person who actually wrote the memo.

ravenstine 7y ago
> Calling it an outrage "mob" is dishonest > Again, it's especially telling that you and the people who defend attribute zero fault to the person who actually wrote the memo. I've been honest and I replied in good faith, and yet you just sidestep and lump me in with some made up group of people whom you say attribute "zero fault" to Damore. You didn't listen to me at all. You didn't even ask me what faults I would attribute to Damore after I denied your perception of what I'm thinking. Why should anyone have a conversation with you?
- wpietri 7y ago
  If you're replying in good faith, you should either defend your "outrage mob" accusation or apologize for it.
  - ravenstine 7y ago
    So they can just dismiss things I say and pretend they can read my mind, but I am supposed to either defend or apologize for it because someone says so? EDIT: I mistakenly thought your comment was from the person I was having the conversation with.
    - wpietri 7y ago
      Thanks for the correction. That's an easy mistake to make here! I've done it myself.
abstractbarista 7y ago
It literally is a mob.