I didn't get that Damore's point was to "not judge individuals as groups". Seemed the opposite.
-
-
Replying to @LilaSquad @GodDoesnt and
He couldn't have said it more clearly. I think he said it several times.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @GodDoesnt and
As noted elsewhere, he cherry-picked already discounted results for his thesis, making his motives suspect from the start.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @LilaSquad @GodDoesnt and
Mind-reading never helps. He argued for individual assessment.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @LilaSquad and
Yes, that fact must be kept merely for accuracy. The question we can then accurately ask is "did he mean it or was it obscurantism?"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @partking7 @LilaSquad and
I don't see much point in asking if people really mean what they say in the arguments they make. Address the argument.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @LilaSquad and
1/Sometimes.Other times it matters.Maybe not here but at times we must address intentional obscurantism as it is. Otherwise you must discuss
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @partking7 @LilaSquad and
It could be dishonesty but its hardly obscure to say 'Differences exist but there's an overlap & treating people as individuals is key.'
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
This is the perfectly standard stance of the liberal who has read a bit of evolutionary psychology. See Steven Pinker.pic.twitter.com/iIr45dWlu3
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose @nr1woman and
Would've thought that fairly obvious and unnecessary.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.