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.
Says the person defending someone else who is entirely capable of speaking for themselves.You are denying our friend Odder a remarkable amount of intellectual agency here.
Please show me where I said you didn't know who he was.
Are you going to address my point or just double down on the hypocrisy?
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.
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.
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
Please show me where I said that Odder didn't know who he was.