Hacker News Reader

Comment by mejari | Hacker News Reader

It's not just "pro-affirmative-action stakeholders" that are expected to respond. _As referenced in the article_, it's extending to expecting women to come up with responses just because they are women. You're talking about a situation where one side (the side of the manifesto) has dropped an "evidence bomb", some of which may be valid, some not, and is now complaining "why won't you have a discussion?" They weren't invited to a discussion, they weren't talked _to_, they were talked _at_, and are now being looked to as the defenders of their gender when they just want to do their damn job.

View on HN

This is exactly it. Women in spaces (virtual, in-person, in their workplaces) are being forced into this conversation to defend ourselves, because this "bomb" was dropped/leaked, outside of all relevant context, and now hype and focusing illusions have made it our job to make evolutionary psych-based arguments against it. I don't know what Damore's intent was, but the effect was to put people who disagreed with him, and especially women who disagreed with him, at an immediate disadvantage, rather than to reach out to them for the sake of a conversation.

It seems like the disadvantage fell squarely on Damore's shoulders here, considering he was the one who was actually fired.

It's definitely horrible for people to feel like they don't belong. But I would argue that feeling like your job is at risk is a lesser threat than actually losing your job, no?

> Women in spaces [...] are being forced into this conversation to defend ourselves

Shouldn't women inherently be part of a conversation about systematically augmenting their gender's presence in the workplace?

Or do you believe that beneficiaries of affirmative action should not be expected to comment on its existence and validity from time to time?

Not a rhetorical question. Either position is potentially defensible IMO. Just want to know where you stand.

this is textbook tone policing. it's an essay, not a spoken dialogue. you could say this about, say, a published study about climate change projections.

You can throw buzzwords designed to shut down discussion at me all you want, that's irrelevant. He claims his goal was to have a dialogue, the fact is that he chose a very poor way of doing that. Either his goals aren't what he claims or he misunderstood how to accomplish them.

In all fairness, we it did at least provoke an internal debate, e.g. this discussion.

Considering this is one of the most explosively discussed topics on HN and in the industry I would say he's been wildly successful at starting a discussion.

I can start a discussion about racism in the US by going on TV and yelling the n-word, that doesn't mean that I did a good job of opening a constructive dialogue.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com