When I posted my first message in this thread... I knew what was coming.
I mean, of course, some of you would actually be interested in a dissection of Damore's claims and how they relate to his sources. That was whole the reason I took the effort to write it in the first place. But I also knew how our anally-reversed
buddy would react to it. I fully expected our
buddy to jump on the fact that I was supporting some of the memo's claims, and then deflect the burden of proof on us for the rest. Sure enough:
What evidence? Seriously, what evidence? Even Murdin, for all his/her criticisms, didn't actually disprove any of Damore's statements, and even acknowledged that he was right about a lot of things.
Nevermind, I got the order wrong! But I guess it doesn't matter too much when the two utterly predictable rhetorical pirouettes are condensed in a single sentence.
Our
buddy here has never had any interest in mutually constructive discourse. I think we're all aware of that by now. Assuming good faith is a beautiful idea, but we also have to accept the fact that people rarely initiate or join this kind of discussion without an ulterior motive. Some simply don't give two shits about wisdom or understanding or any of these soft-hearted degenerate progressive values ; they just want to be right, and pulling all their weight towards their narrative is the most efficient way to achieve that goal.
I could go on for hours with this kind of platitudes, but I reckon that's enough setup for what comes next. After all, I didn't jump back into this conversation just to fulminate against our
buddy's intellectual dishonesty ; that's like beating a prehistoric horse fossil. So, let's address the actual issue at hand: the blog article. The one that our
buddy was so kind to explicitly endorse after a bit of goading.