3 ms·
Arguing about the meaning of what Damore wrote, and what he thought/intended, is a huge waste of time. Just about everybody who read it comes to a different in
by dekhn 2y ago
Arguing about the meaning of what Damore wrote, and what he thought/intended, is a huge waste of time. Just about everybody who read it comes to a different interpretation of what he meant to imply. Then folks argue endlessly (on forums like this, memegen, elsewhere) about their different interpretations.
A better writer with more experience could have written a doc that was basically "some aspects of the training in our DEI classes is not scientifically supported, but is being used as a cudgel to change people's behavior" with a few examples.
- toomim 2y agoThe problem is you trying to "interpret" what he wrote. Let's stick to what he actually said: https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/Damore.pdf https://web.cs.ucdavis.edu/~koehl/Teaching/ECS188/PDF_files/... His writing is very clear. He is talking about the Ideological Echo Chamber at Google. He is not railing against women.
- dekhn 2y agoI've read the document (before it was widely published- it was posted internally at the time) several times and I don't think I said anything at all that wasn't technically correct.
- mistermann 2y agoHave you considered the interpretation process within reading?
- mistermann 2y ago>Arguing about the meaning of what Damore wrote, and what he thought/intended, is a huge waste of time. Just about everybody who read it comes to a different interpretation of what he meant to imply. Studying the literal fundamental nature of reality doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.