Hacker News Reader

Comment by dvfjsdhgfv | Hacker News Reader

Yes, but she uses counterarguments based on relevant past studies rather than empty "everyone knows it's just sexism" style of arguing that we've seen so far in the media.

View on HN

But most of her counter arguments are against arguments the original author never made or at best against misrepresentations.

That's a good start nevertheless, a level above the usual "what a sexist pig" pseudo-arguments. Reading each of these articles I learn something more, I expand my knowledge of things that weren't even in my area of interest, I get more understanding as to what is offending other people these days... I think a discussion based on merits is extremely useful, and I'm sad seeing all these articles quickly flagged.

How many levels until we're talking about the fair points he made, along with the well-intentioned suggestions he was making?

We don't live in an ideal world. People have their own agendas, obsessions, feelings etc. that obscure their judgement. It will definitely take a long while.

> We don't live in an ideal world. People have their own agendas, obsessions, feelings etc. that obscure their judgement. It will definitely take a long while.

Well, when you put it like that, firing the guy was clearly the best decision.....

edit: formatting

I'm not sure if it's the best for the guy, but definitely for the advancement of the general discussion about the limits of political correctness and freedom to express one's opinions, or even scientific research not in line with mainline views.

It's inevitable that even good faith counterarguments will occasionally mistake exactly what the original argument was. Especially when the participants start with such different viewpoints and on topics that they obviously feel strongly about. The way to continue the argument (if that's what you want to do) is to point out what the stronger (and perhaps more correct/original) version of the point being countered is and how it differs from the version that was countered.

Simply dismissing counterpoints without engaging to make sure you understand them runs the risk of falling for the exact thing you're criticising.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com