The world is full of fools. You didn’t realize I was being facetious?

It’s still hostile and its not the only time that he is condescending in his paper. He even singled out the left in various footnotes, pointing out ‘ironies’ of their viewpoints. His paper is far from being meant as constructive criticism. Its condescending at times, sarcastic at others. He didn’t want to discuss how what’s going on at Google may not be right. He wanted to tell them how wrong they definitely were. All his excuses of how he’s being twisted in the media are ridiculous.

You will cause less confusion for Breitbart and others like myself. I guess that phrasing is less… confusing. I was referring to the confusion of how Breitbart readers think you’re leftist and how I believe you agree with Damore’s ideology.

I haven’t given it much thought, but I feel like it wouldn’t be surprising if it ends up most people mix ideology and identity. Ideology is generally based on your interpretation of the world based on your core beliefs. You attack the ideology, you’re attacking their core beliefs. You attack someone’s core, they may take it personally. You insult someone’s god, don’t be surprised if they get offended. Yes, that’s an extreme, but its serving as example. I’m not trying to equate the two as being equals. I have to be careful not to use metaphors or examples or whatever or else you might yell false equivalence again, which by the way, I let go previously, but that wasn’t false equivalence. you asked how can something be a certain way based on an assumption. i merely pointed to an example that demonstrated the concept behind the flaw of the assumption. And social science is tricky. It can easily be dismissed as correlation/causation issue, but when they try to normalize for all known variables, it leads to the best guess of the cause. it can still be wrong possibly, but that was the problem with the study. they didn’t normalize for enough other than to state agreeable people get less than dominant individuals from the same gender. it did *not* cover enough variables to lend itself to the conclusion that agreeability of a gender is “enough of a factor for the pay gap and therefore programs to help women should also help guys because they can be agreeable too.”

Damore’s paper was still poorly cited which is what started all of this and people just kept saying I was wrong pointing to the wrong citation. You went out and found a study that he didn’t cite. Moreover, his statements don’t coincide with the conclusions of even that study. So its unlikely he was even using that. So I still stick with my original assertion.

Like what you read? Give Paul Henry a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.