2 ms·
Yes, I think your characterization of Damore's document is deeply flawed, to an irresponsible degree, and I have no problem telling you that directly. The "insu
by civilized 5y ago
Yes, I think your characterization of Damore's document is deeply flawed, to an irresponsible degree, and I have no problem telling you that directly. The "insurmountable blockers" thing is particularly ridiculous, as I explain in another comment in this tree [1]. I do believe my comment is an appropriately nuanced critique of a flatly ridiculous position.
I'm glad that you like SSC though and I'm sure we could get along and discuss this rationally and fairly. I did not say that you didn't read the SSC article, only that you should look at it to appreciate the relevance to the current conversation.
All that said, I'm not going to hold back on how poorly I think you've understood what Damore said.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610370 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29610370
- RangerScience 5y agoFosho. Rest of discussion in other tree; for here, just this bit. You said: > I would highly recommend you read the beginning of the linked SSC article That definitely reads to me like you saying I didn't read it. Can you take a moment and attempt to understand how that would come across as having that meaning?
- civilized 5y agoThat's fair. Sometimes when I want to make a point I just charge forward and don't think about the best way to manage how it will sound. "You didn't read X" to a stranger over the internet is an unfounded cheap shot I would never intentionally take.
- boppo1 5y agoPlease run for office.