[JoshTriplett]

(In case it doesn't go without saying, lest silence be interpreted as agreeing with this response: no, both of these parody arguments are completely ridiculous. Both of these have superficial similarity to useful discussions, but have intentionally turned them into absurdist parody in order to mock actual notions of tolerance.)

[mooseburger]

They both happened. It's an accurate description of the state of discourse.

[skedaddle]

No they didn't. In the two situations he is clearly alluding to

1) the person admitted it was hurtful and unacceptable and that they should not have said it, and the mainstream publisher said they would not have hired her without this understanding

2) the argument the person made before being fired was not simply that there is a non-zero amount of sexual dimorphism in humans, it was concretely that womens' neuroticism, agreeableness, and other feeling-sy tendencies may explain why they are on average worse leaders, underrepresented, underpaid, etc.

[orangecat]

it was concretely that womens' neuroticism, agreeableness, and other feeling-sy tendencies may explain why they are on average worse leaders, underrepresented, underpaid, etc.

Remove "worse leaders" (which was not in Damore's memo), and it's a plausible theory supported by quite a bit of evidence.

[skedaddle]

I'm sorry to say that it was in the memo, in the personality differences section. In any case my point isn't to get into the debate about whether sexist outcomes may actually be valid. I was pointing out that GPs examples of white/male victimization were misrepresented and dishonest.

[mooseburger]

1) Splitting hairs. Swap it for Sarah Jeong if you like. 2) Could quite easily be a true statement, if a controversial and uncomfortable one.