[davehtaylor]

The author took the "I'm not sexist, but..." approach to this. But sadly, because of that, people seem to think he's some kind of objective observer.

If you have to make that kind of declaration, then everything you say afterward contradicts it.

[TeMPOraL]

This whole "I'm not sexist, but" line or rejection is one of the most anti-intellectual things I've seen in my lifetime. It's literally the good old witch test. If you don't say it, you're sexist because you didn't deny it. If you say it, you're sexist because obviously a sexist would deny being one.

[ashark]

Not weighing in on the broader issue here or, necessarily, why the author included that bit (see what I'm doing?) but pedantically qualifying one's position and every single clause to the point of absurdity is a style people learn when writing for online audiences, because something about reading text online makes people even worse readers than they ordinarily are, which is saying something, while also making them feel like well-informed experts on every conceivable topic who definitely need to comment on the thing they just read and (generously) half-understood, while also for some reason assuming the writer is some kind of actual fairy tale monster until proven otherwise.

Above sweeping statements intentionally left without pedantic qualification because it accurately expresses my thoughts on the matter as written. Deal with it, Internet.

[jabv]

So there's no need to evaluate the argument, only to parse for key signals in the rhetoric?

Thanks for saving me time in my future critical reading!

[davehtaylor]

I evaluated it. I read the manifesto in its entirety.

He starts off by saying he's not against diversity, but then spends the rest of the paper demonstrating the exact opposite, and then justifies it by claiming that men and women are biologically different, and that a lack of diversity is ok because of that, or that any perceived discrimination is ok, because it's not really discrimination.

And he uses the issue of "dialog" as a smokescreen. It's the same kind of tactic used by creationists wanting to "teach the controversy." They don't really want to honestly debate the merits of each position.

This isn't dialog, nor does he want dialog. It's simply him trying to justify his prejudice, and railing at "PC culture" for not letting him do so.

[TheLilHipster]

> I evaluated it. I read the manifesto in its entirety.

Looking forward to your solid rebuttals then! Woo!

> He starts off by saying he's not against diversity

Mmm

> but then spends the rest of the paper demonstrating the exact opposite

Ummm, okay... You've got a positive assertion here, so you must have something solid here to back up your opinion, right?

> ..and then justifies it by claiming that men and women are biologically different... ...It's simply him trying to justify his prejudice, and railing at "PC culture" for not letting him do so.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing in your comment? Got your own narrative going on, assuming the intent of the author...

> This isn't dialog, nor does he want dialog.

> It's simply him trying to justify his prejudice,

> They don't really want to honestly debate the merits of each position.

Like holy shit you spent the entire comment doing the exact thing you complain about the author doing.

This is the sort of mindset that kills progress, the inability to flirt with the concept of being disillusioned and truly question your own stance and bias. Its like you "mean well" and that's all that matter to you.

Idk man, you can't judge others on their ACTIONS and then only judge yourself on your INTENT.

[mpweiher]

See, for me that happens when you have to lie about what the other person said to make your point.

YMMV.