Direct question to Lana: Why aren't you taking part in this debate?
You send links to long texts written by other people and claim that as evidence that you are correct. But you do not articulate any arguments of your own. You claim that articles we have provided aren't quite up to your standards but refuse to explain which parts you agree or disagree with. The most hypocritical part still is not that after I explained which parts of the counter-counter-argument of yours I can see to be bad you told me to argue with them -usually that in itself would be the laziest way to deal with a debate- instead what I have the biggest beef with you is that you refuse to say if you agree or disagree with that particular text...
Because you show the link and claim victory over the one I had, but then refuse to admit what parts, if any, you agree with and by doing so you can later backpedal. You refuse to take a stance.
In fact, here's another direct question: What do you think about the topic of this thread? You never said who you agree if any of the people who sue or plan to sue Google.
Lana, what do you think of the original manifesto? What do you think of the stuff that you linked? Do you agree with them?
Well, I'm not as sure about it as I was, but I'm not going to reject it. As for the lawsuits, I'm going to wait and see for now.
As for why I haven't played that active a role in a debate, it's because I felt like I get personally attacked every time I post a contentious opinion. I was trying to redirect the ire away from me. Maybe it's cowardly, but I hope it's at least understandable.
And I have a direct question for you: why aren't you enforcing the "don't be a dick" rule? Because it seems like far too many people are violating it with nary a comment from you.
Now, I'd like to take a moment to address Murdin. Let me start by saying that you're grounding your criticisms in science, rather than ad hominems or irrelevant divergences. That puts you head and shoulders above a lot of people on the Internet. I can admit that your criticisms of my link have some merit. Which brings me to my next point: you hit on something regarding my motives. After Queen's response redirected the discussion to talking about Damore's memo, I was hoping for a scientific discussion about the memo itself. So the personal attacks threw me off balance, and led me to think of the debate as something more competitive, something I wanted to "win". Under a more dispassionate mindset, I think I would've been able to recognize the rebuttal's faults. Problem is, I overlooked them. I wasn't using it as a discussion piece, but as ammunition. You're a perceptive individual who helped me to recognize that I was letting my pride get the better of me, and I respect that.
That being said, however, there are some claims you made that I can't help but criticize. You say I wasn't interested in constructive discourse. In reality, I posted this with the original intent of constructive discourse. Yes, I slipped into a more "I need to win this" mindset, but that came later. While that's not an excuse, and I do need to take steps to avoid that in the future, I'm generally not focused on being "right". I also don't hate science; while I can admit that I wasn't as impartial as I should've been during this discussion, my intent wasn't originally to use it as a weapon, but to steer the discussion into a more scientific venue. While I can admit that I was using it as a weapon later on, if only subconsciously, that's not my usual modus operandi. To address the bit about Queen, I wasn't trying to bait or goad her, I just thought she was digging her own grave with unsubstantiated ad homs. And "taking over?" My "usual drivel?" I haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about. I haven't even been all that active on these forums. And in any case, nobody forced you to respond to this, so I really don't see how posting it here was some kind of wrong against you. All I wanted to do was talk about the legal difficulties a major tech company was going through, and it seemed like the thread fit here the best.
Please don't take this as some kind of attack on you. Really, I appreciate your criticism. I'm just offering some in return. I completely understand your frustration, even if it seems a little overblown to me, and I'd like to come to some kind of understanding.
Anyway, thanks for putting me back on track. It's time I focused more on an impartial effort to determine the accuracy of Damore's claims. Do you want to post the criticisms to the blog, or should I?