> You are saying what the guy posted wasn't offensive and also that everyone is finding it offensive.
This is exactly what's been going through my mind following the threads on this issue today.
> That makes no sense unless everyone is stupid.
I think this is a false dichotomy. The offended comments seem to be offended by arguments similar to those in the manifesto rather than those in the manifesto. E.g. offense is rightly taken at the argument "biological differences explain job preferences" while the manifesto argues "biological differences explain job preferences [in part]".
So rather than [A] being being offended by something that is not offensive (i.e. stupid) or [B] the manifesto being offensive I think we're left with [C] people being rightly offended by something that's not in the manifesto.
With this the argument becomes:
That makes no sense unless people have bad reading comprehension
Actually, what I was trying to say was that the document cannot be simultaneously non offensive and yet offend everyone reading it unless "everyone is stupid = has bad reading comprehension"
I don't think everyone has bad reading comprehension, tbh. It is what parts of the document that you focus on - the ones that align with your existing world view - that cause you to agree with it or get offended by it.
Some see it as "just sharing an opinion" and others see it as "questioning my capability of doing the tech job"
> Some see it as "just sharing an opinion" and others see it as "questioning my capability of doing the tech job"
Could you point me to a quote taken in context that does that? I just reread the document and fail to see where the manifesto questions an individuals capacity of doing a tech job. I'm honestly trying but fail to see the offense.
AFAIK the author questions whether the percentage of capable and willing individuals is the same between men and women [1].
The manifesto also contains this quote to put the above in context
> I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
[1]: I agree with his conclusion that a non 50/50 split is not necessarily bias. The reasoning can't be discussed without the removed references.
PS:
> "everyone is stupid = has bad reading comprehension"
I disagree with the equality in general but I think your interpretation is fair as well - we probably just disagree on the context (e.g. did people pay full attention or even read the article at all).
> Could you point me to a quote taken in context that does that? I just reread the document and fail to see where the manifesto questions an individuals capacity of doing a tech job. I'm honestly trying but fail to see the offense.
I'd second this. I've read it a few times and can't see the problem. To be explicit, I'm not saying there is no problem, I'm asking for help to see it.
This is exactly what's been going through my mind following the threads on this issue today.
> That makes no sense unless everyone is stupid.
I think this is a false dichotomy. The offended comments seem to be offended by arguments similar to those in the manifesto rather than those in the manifesto. E.g. offense is rightly taken at the argument "biological differences explain job preferences" while the manifesto argues "biological differences explain job preferences [in part]".
So rather than [A] being being offended by something that is not offensive (i.e. stupid) or [B] the manifesto being offensive I think we're left with [C] people being rightly offended by something that's not in the manifesto.
With this the argument becomes: That makes no sense unless people have bad reading comprehension
Which I happily accept :)