| > something like Yeah, that's correct. And IMHO, if Damore had presented just that, I would expect the outcome to be different, although still fraught for other reasons. But he didn't present just that. > questions You did end up answering them, although in a different chain! And I appreciate it. > disagreement I mean, bluntly, I'm pretty much ready to abandon it, although since others are engaging seems like you're good to go without me :) > conversation One issue that seems to come up in these situations - not always, and I don't really know one way the other if it came up in Damore's - was recently demonstrated by Dave Chappelle, when he went to his alma mater saying (paraphrased) "let's have a conversation", and then (IMO) very much didn't, even if people said words to each other. So that happens. > you and others So... Like. To the extent that I've invited you to a conversation, that we're then having here - do you feel like we're having a conversation, or do you feel like there's more heretic burning? |
Damore's memo was not an anti-diversity screed and I don't believe any reasonable reader could reach that conclusion. As such, I view your comments not as participating in conversation but as a warning light to passersby that they will suffer enduring reputational damage should they express the wrong opinions - a reminder that even if your positions are evidence based, measured, and appropriately expressed you will still face the destruction of your career and reputation for expressing those ideas.