when a person spend a lot of time rebutting about something that was not in the original argument (performance assertions are entirely absent, but that's the major focus here) that's pretttttty shitttty.

can we just have a moratorium on bad arguments about this? i don't know why we need the moral flogging from people who can't even keep what was said straight.

Good grief. I'm all for people offering argument and critique, and I feel like there is a lot of useful stuff in this article, but claiming that a carefully worded essay (by a "lay person") on the subject of diversity from a non-radically progressive point of view is really covert fascism makes OP look like a political hack.

No mainstream conservative or libertarian is going to take that statement seriously. I'm still going to finish reviewing the arguments and evidence provided, but who could trust that the OP is really giving us, the audience, the whole picture?

For a saner discussion of the matter, see the debate between Scott Alexander and Adam Grant[0].

[0]http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/08/07/contra-grant-on-exagger...