a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by johnnyFive

Your comment is exactly the problem that they're trying to point out, though. "They're bad people because they had positive things to say about this other guy" is nonsense. But because the orthodoxy has decided that James Damore is a heretic, guilt by association is automatic. (The James Damore case is a perfect example of this. If you actually read his memo, it's far different from how it was portrayed: at no point does he argue that women are less capable of being engineers than men. It's also not bad science.)





galen  ·  1977 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You are denying our friend Odder a remarkable amount of intellectual agency here. Which is more likely:

1. Odder informed themself about the James Damore case, found Damore's reasoning and behavior repugnant, and therefore thinks less of those who seek to defend him

2. Odder heard that "the orthodoxy" rejected Damore and decided, purely on the basis of groupthink, that everyone remotely associated with him is worthless.

Actually, no, fuck that. This isn't even about likelihood. Which one of those options should be your assumption coming into an argument, devoid of supporting data? I think the answers pretty clear.

johnnyFive  ·  1977 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    You are denying our friend Odder a remarkable amount of intellectual agency here.

Says the person defending someone else who is entirely capable of speaking for themselves.

user-inactivated  ·  1976 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
johnnyFive  ·  1975 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Please show me where I said you didn't know who he was.

user-inactivated  ·  1975 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
galen  ·  1977 days ago  ·  link  ·  

…so are you gonna address my points or just mock me for

openly participating in a discussion on a public forum

johnnyFive  ·  1977 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Are you going to address my point or just double down on the hypocrisy?

galen  ·  1977 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I'd address your point if you had one.

My original comment had nothing to do with defending Odder, I was criticizing you. I saw you making an assumption that I didn't think was justified, so I pointed that out and explained myself. I'm not here trying to white knight it up.

johnnyFive  ·  1977 days ago  ·  link  ·  

That's certainly how it came across. I mean, I don't see how it's unreasonable to say that it's hypocritical for you to criticize me for denying someone intellectual agency while doing the exact same thing.

Quatrarius  ·  1977 days ago  ·  link  ·  

assuming that somebody is ignorant of the details of a situation and is too biased to give it a fair shake =/= assuming good faith

you're "no u"ing galen and it looks silly

johnnyFive  ·  1975 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Please show me where I said that Odder didn't know who he was.