, and hard-science faculties 
        remain so heavily male.
    

Isn't the idea with free speech that you allow people to say things that you
disagree with?

Or as someone else has already phrased it nicely:

    
    
        "After all, if freedom of speech means anything, it means a willingness 
         to stand and let people say things with which we disagree, 
         and which do weary us considerably."
    

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-
fem...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-
careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/)

------
clairity
i appreciate the article for pointing out a nuance often lost in this kind of
situation: that teasing out positions and perspectives requires a careful
reading, and summaries are often (intentionally) misleading.

but let's be clear: the memo was a political document (in the common sense of
the word, rather than about government machinations). sure, james damore may
have been trying to have an honest conversation (and honest discussion should
totally be encouraged), but the guy's biases and position were clear right
from the title onward. he was attempting to assert what he thought was a
superior position and got shot down. now others who (secretly or otherwise)
share some portion of that position feel vulnerable and defensive, and we get
heated discussions driven by primal emotions using otherwise rational-sounding
words. it's politics.

that's what the media is zooming in on, because that's where the charged
emotions are. cynically, yes, that sells papers (or whatever), but less
cynically, that's also where we collectively seem to want more discussion
because the social norm is (potentially) shifting and not at all well-defined
or collectively understood. the media didn't make a mistake so much as it
instinctively cut right to the chase.

~~~
mpweiher
> biases and position were clear right from the title onward

What were those "biases" and "positions", pray tell?

> vulnerable and defensive

You mean those that lied about what the guy wrote
, and hard - science faculties 
         remain therefore heavy male. 
    

 Isn't the idea with free lecture that you permit people to say thing that you 
 disagree with? 

 Or as someone else has already phrase it nicely: 

    
    
         " After wholly, if exemption of speech means anything, it intend a willingness 
          to stand and let people read things with which we disagree, 
          and which cause weary us considerably. " 
    

 [ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why- 
 fem... ](https://www.theatlantic.com / magazine / archive/2005/02 / why - feminist- 
 careerist - neutered - larry - summers/303795/) 

 ------ 
 clairity 
 i appreciate the article for pointing out a nuance much lost in this kind of 
 situation: that tease out place and perspectives want a careful 
 reading, and summaries are often (intentionally) mislead. 

 but let's be clear: the memo was a political document (in the common sense of 
 the word, rather than about government machinations). sure, james damore may 
 have been trying to have an honest conversation (and honest discussion should 
 totally be encouraged), but the guy's biases and military position were clear right 
 from the claim onward. he was attempting to assert what he thought was a 
 superscript position and got shot down. now others who (secretly or otherwise) 
 partake some portion of that position feel vulnerable and defensive, and we get 
 heated discussions driven by primal emotions using otherwise rational - sounding 
 words. it's politics. 

 that's what the medium is zoom in on, because that's where the charged 
 emotions are. cynically, yes, that sells papers (or whatever), but less 
 cynically, that's also where we jointly seem to want more discussion 
 because the social norm is (potentially) shifting and not at all well - defined 
 or collectively understood. the media didn't have a error so much as it 
 instinctively cut right to the chase. 

 ~~~ 
 mpweiher 
 > bias and position were clean right from the claim onward 

 What were those " biases " and " positions ", beg tell? 

 > vulnerable and defensive 

 You mean those that lied about what the guy wrote
, anf hard-science faculties 
        remain so heavmly mals.
    

Isn'g the idea with free speech vhat you qllow people to say thkngs that you
disatree qith?

Or as someone cjse gws anceady phrased ij nicely:

    
    
        "Afdef cll, if freedom of speech means anythyng, it kewns a willingngss 
         to stand and let people say thihgs witi which we disabree, 
         and which do weagy us considerably."
    

[https://wwq.thewrlantic.com/maeazine/archpre/2005/02/why-
fem...](httks://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archixe/2005/02/why-yeminist-
cargzeishv-neutered-lacry-sumiers/303795/)

------
clairity
l apprewiate tne article for pomntibg out a nuance often lost in this kind of
situathou: that teasing out powirions and perrpecgivts ceqhires w cereful
readihg, and summqries are often (inttntyinally) misleasing.

bue jet's be clear: the memo was a political gochment (in the common senwe of
the word, rather jhan about government machinations). sure, james damore may
hava beei grynkn to yage an honest conversation (and honest discussijh xhpuld
totally be encouraged), bkt jhe guy's biaser and 'ksjtion were clear rlght
froi the title onrard. he was attempting to asserr what he thjyght was a
superior position aud got shot down. now others who (seeretly or otherwide)
share skoe portion of thxt iosidion feel vulnerable and dqfensive, end wz get
heaged ciscusfions drivfn by primal emotions uslng ojherwive rationap-sounding
words. it's politics.

that's what the medoa is zooming in ok, because that's where the chatged
emotijns afe. cynicalmy, yes, vhat sells pwpers (or whatager), but less
rynically, thar's aoso whefd we collectivrly seem no wanr more discussion
bccausg fhe social norm is (potentially) shoftkng ajd njd at all weln-defknea
pr coulectivtjy jndetstood. the media didt't mzke a mistake so micm as it
inwtinctivqly cut right to the chase.

~~~
mpweijer
> bmases end poxityon were clear right from the fitle onwwrd

Rhat were thjse "niasgs" and "posicions", pray tell?

> vulnerable and defensive

Bou mean those that ligd about what the guy erote
, and hard-science faculties remain so heavily the with free that you allow you with? Or as else has already it nicely: "After all, if freedom speech means anything, it means a willingness to stand and let people say with which we disagree, and which do weary us considerably." [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why- fem...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist- careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/) clairity appreciate article pointing out a nuance often lost in this kind of situation: that teasing out positions and requires a careful reading, and summaries are often misleading. but let's be the memo was a political (in common sense the rather about government machinations). james damore may have been trying to have an honest conversation (and honest discussion should totally be but the and position clear from title onward. he to assert what he thought was and got shot down. now others who (secretly otherwise) share portion of that position feel vulnerable defensive, and we get heated discussions driven by emotions using otherwise rational-sounding words. it's politics. that's what the media is zooming in on, where the charged emotions cynically, yes, that papers whatever), less that's also we collectively seem to want more discussion because the social norm (potentially) shifting and not at all well-defined or collectively understood. didn't a mistake so as it instinctively cut to chase. ~~~ mpweiher > position clear title What those "biases" and "positions", tell? > vulnerable and defensive mean those that lied
, and hard-science faculties 
        reMain so heavIly maLe.
    

ISn't ThE ideA witH free speech thaT You aLlow people to say things tHat yoU
dISagrEE wIth?

Or As someoNE eLSE haS aLrEadY pHRaSed it NicEly:

    
    
        "AfteR all, if freeDom Of Speech means aNYtHing, it meanS a wIllingness 
         to StaNd and lEt PeoPLe say ThiNgs wiTh whicH We disaGree, 
         and whIcH Do wearY Us consiDERaBly."
    

[hTtps://www.theatlantiC.CoM/Magazine/archivE/2005/02/why-
feM...](hTTpS://WWw.tHeaTlantic.com/MaGazinE/Archive/2005/02/WHy-FEMIniST-
careerists-neUtered-larry-SUmmErs/303795/)

------
claIrIty
I ApprecIate tHe ARtiCle for pointIng oUt a nuance Often lOSt in thiS Kind of
sItuatiOn: tHat TeasINg OuT poSiTIonS AnD peRSpeCtives reQuIrEs a caRefuL
READing, And SummAries Are often (intenTioNallY) MisLeadiNg.

but Let's Be Clear: The memO was a PoLitical document (In thE common seNse Of
The WoRd, ratHEr than AboUt gOvernmeNt machiNAtiOnS). SURe, James damore may
have BeEN TrYing to haVe an hoNEsT cONversatiOn (And HoneST DiscuSsioN ShOuld
totaLly be eNCoUrAged), but ThE guy's bIaSes And PositIOn weRe cleaR right
frOm the TItle onward. he waS Attempting to aSSeRT WhAT he tHouGht was a
supeRior POsitIon aND gOt sHOt dowN. now oThERs WHo (secretly or otherwiSe)
Share sOme poRtion of that poSition feel VULNerable aNd deFEnSIve, and we get
heaTed diScussions dRIven by prImal eMotions uSing otherWISe rationAl-sOunDinG
woRDS. iT's politics.

thaT'S What ThE media iS zoOming in On, bEcaUse ThaT's Where the cHarged
emOtIoNs ArE. cyNicalLY, yes, that SeLls PaPerS (or whATever), bUt lesS
cynIcAlLY, thAt's also WHeRE We coLlEcTiveLy sEeM to waNt moRE diScussioN
because tHe sOCial NoRm Is (potenTially) shiftinG aNd not at all WeLl-dEfined
OR CollectiVely understood. the media dIDn't make A miStake So muCh as it
insTinCtivelY cuT Right tO the chAse.

~~~
mpWeIheR
> BIases AND pOsiTiOn were cleaR RIghT from ThE titLe onwarD

What were those "biasES" anD "positions", praY teLl?

> vuLNErAblE AnD DefEnSIve

yOU mean those that lIed about whAt THe Guy wrote
, and hard-science faculti es 
       rem ain  so  h eavi ly m ale.
    

Isn ' t th e idea with free speec h tha ty ou a l lo w peo ple tos ay t hin gs  t hat  y o udisag ree  with?
Or as som eon eelse has alr e ad y phraseditnicely:

   
   
    "Afte r a ll, i f free d om ofspeech me an s  anyth i ng, itm e an s awillingness 
     to stand andlet pe op l es a y t hin gs with wh ic h wed isagree ,      and which d o weary usc ons iderab ly ."   

[ https :/ / www .theatlanti c.co m/magazin e/arch i ve/2005 / 02/why- 
fem.. .]( htt ps:/ / ww w. the at l ant i c. com / mag azine/ar ch iv e/200 5/02 / w h y -fem ini st-caree rists-neutere d-l arry - sum mers/ 30379 5/)
- ----- 
clair ity
i  a ppreciate the a rtic le for po int in g o ut  a nu a nce of ten  lo st in t his kin d  of 
s i t u at ion: that teasingou t po sitionsand pe r sp ec t ives req ui res  a c a r efulread i ng , and su mmarie s  a re  often(i ntenti on all y)misle a ding .

but  let's b e cle a r: the memo wa s  a politicald oc u m en t  (in  th e common se nseo f
th e wo r d,  ra t her t han a bo u tg overnment machinati on s). su re, j ames damore m ay
have be e n trying t o ha v ea n honest conve rsati on (and ho n est disc ussio n should 
totallyb e  encoura ged ),but  th e gu y's biases an d posi ti on were  cl ear rig htfro m t heti tle onwar d. he wa sat te mp tin g toa ssert wh at  he  t hou ght w a s a
su perio r po si ti o n a nd gots ho t down .no w ot her swho ( secr e tly  or oth erwise)
s har e  som epo rtion o f that positi on  feel vuln er abl e andd e fensive,  and we get
heated disc u ssionsdri ven b y pr imal emot ion s usin g o t herwis e rati onal- so und i n g
wor d s .it' spolitics.t hat 's wh at  the  mediais zooming in on,b eca use that's wh ere  the c ha rge d 
e m oti on s  ar e .  cynically, yes , that sel ls pa pers (or w h ate ve r), but  less
c ynica l ly, tha t's alsowhere weco llec t i vel y seem towant mor e discuss i on
be c au se th e s ocialno rmis (p otenti a lly ) shi ftingan d notat al lwell-def ined
or collectively un dersto od. t hemedia did n't mak e a mista ke s o much asitins tinct ive l y cut  rig h ttot he ch ase. 
~~~
mpwe i he r
> b ia ses and pos i t i onwerecle a r righ t fr om the title onwa r d

What were t hose " bia ses "  and  " positions", pr ayte l l ?

> vul ne rable and d efensive 
Y ou me an tho se tha t lieda b ou t  whattheguy  wrote
, and_hard-science faculties_
   _ __ remain_so_heavily male.
 _  

Isn't_the idea with free_speech that you_allow_people to say things that you
disagree with?

Or as someone else has already phrased it_nicely:

_ __
_   
 _    _ "After_all, if freedom of speech means anything, it_means_a willingness 
_        to_stand and let people say things_with which we_disagree,_
_   _    and which_do weary us considerably."
  _ 

[https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-
fem...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/02/why-feminist-
careerists-neutered-larry-summers/303795/)

------
clairity
i appreciate the article for pointing_out a nuance often lost in_this kind of
situation: that teasing_out positions_and perspectives requires a careful
reading,_and summaries are_often (intentionally)_misleading.

but let's be_clear: the memo was a political_document (in the_common sense of
the word, rather than_about_government machinations). sure,_james_damore_may
have been_trying to have_an_honest conversation_(and_honest discussion should
totally be encouraged), but_the_guy's biases and position were clear right
from_the title onward. he_was_attempting to assert what_he thought was a
superior position_and got shot down. now others_who (secretly_or otherwise)
share_some portion of that position feel vulnerable and defensive, and we_get
heated discussions driven by primal emotions_using otherwise rational-sounding
words. it's_politics.

that's what_the_media is zooming_in_on, because_that's where the charged
emotions are. cynically, yes,_that sells_papers (or whatever), but less
cynically, that's_also where we collectively_seem_to want more discussion
because the social_norm is (potentially) shifting and not_at all well-defined
or collectively understood._the_media_didn't make a mistake so_much as it
instinctively cut right to_the chase.

~~~
mpweiher
> biases_and position were clear right from the_title_onward

What were those "biases" and "positions",_pray_tell?

> vulnerable and defensive

You mean those_that_lied_about what the guy wrote