[cooooooffffeeee]

You're doing yourself a disservice by mentioning Damore at all.

His manifesto may have had some points, but was also rife with utter bullshit, false equivalence, value judgements, and personal biases.

Damore has also since proven himself to be an utter chode in his unwavering insistence that he is 100% right.

If you have an argument to make, you'll reach more people without mentioning that nonsense.

[pmarreck]

> You're doing yourself a disservice by mentioning Damore at all.

> Damore has also since proven himself to be an utter chode

This is the appeal to shame fallacy, pure and simple.

> in his unwavering insistence that he is 100% right

I have yet to see solid rational arguments against his assertions that do not fall into one fallacy or another (appeal to moderation, appeal to emotion, strawman, appeal to... you name it, I've seen it). Until I am shown a well-worded rational argument against his actual assertions, and not some strawman that outrage-powered anti-intellectuals chose to discredit, he is correct (so far). I read his paper, all he did was propose organic solutions to an organic problem, I didn't see what was so outrageous about that.

Critical thinking seems to be a vastly underrated skill these days.

[bendbro]

The Wikipedia page on the topic does not reflect what you say. It shows criticism and support from multiple people.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google's_Ideological_Echo_Ch...

[cooooooffffeeee]

Right but it's a such a lightning rod that it instantly derails any reasonable discussion. It's basically the Godwin's law of conversations about sex, gender, and political bias.

[pmarreck]

"this conversation is too miscommunicative to be had"

...is exactly the sort of conversation that needs to happen

[cooooooffffeeee]

No, it's not. Damore is (objectively) an asshole and doesn't earn any discussion.

Choose any one of the (fairly unoriginal) points he was trying to make and talk about that.

[pmarreck]

> Damore is (objectively) an asshole

Come on, dude. This is no longer a rational argument, you are making personal attacks. Jobs was also an asshole, but he also happened to be right the vast majority of the time. One of my doctors is an asshole (let's call him "Dr. House"), but he's excellent, and I have seen the studies that say "bedside manner" not only doesn't correlate with skill/patient outcomes, it may INVERSELY correlate with skill/patient outcomes.

I don't give a fuck if someone's an asshole, as long as they're right. You can call it the Walter Sobchak worldview (as in "You're not wrong, Walter, you're just an asshole!") All this kowtowing to people's feelings just encourages bullshit; the truth often does not care what you or I think about it.

> Choose any one of the (fairly unoriginal) points he was trying to make and talk about that

OK, sure. Let's go with one point from his "Concrete Suggestions" section. "Stop alienating conservatives." What is unreasonable about that? A work environment that is hostile to conservative viewpoints is a hostile fucking work environment. I'm not even conservative (I'm "left of center") and that seems plain as day to me and completely nondebatable.