6 ms·
You do no get to decide what contributes and what does not beyond your +-1. you do not have the moral high ground when you are repeating lies. It is clear to me
by ofirg 9y ago
You do no get to decide what contributes and what does not beyond your +-1. you do not have the moral high ground when you are repeating lies. It is clear to me that anyone that has read the memo, and is not laying will not describe it the way DanHulton did. Seems to me that what ever conversation you want to have it should not be based on falsehoods.
- dwringer 9y agoI read it, and I think DanHulton described it in pretty much the same way I would. The charts struck me as lacking meaningful context, and loose correlations were treated as logical, causal relationships in support for discriminatory hypotheses, reading like a case study in how to fallaciously present opinion as fact through charts and statistics.
- acdha 9y agoIf you believe that, why are you lying about the motives of people you disagree with? There are many people who’ve read the memo (yes, the version with citations) and concluded that Damore’s argument included biological determinism. You can say that’s wrong and the memo was just sloppy, perhaps by citing subsequent clarifications about that not being his intention. You can say that’s right and attempt to find stronger scientific support than he did. What you’re doing instead is saying that people are either lying about having read it or deliberately misrepresenting its contents. That’s what I said had no value since it’s transparently wrong (it’s hard to come up with point by point criticism for something you haven’t read) and prevents engaging with any of the actual ideas.