
HN’s most controversial topic - alexandercrohde
https://blog.alexrohde.com/archives/638
======
whitten
This is probably a prank, but if it isn't, I'd encourage the writer to tell us
what "Damore" is, as the article discusses a pro-Damore stance, but assumes we
are willing to look elsewhere for a definition.

~~~
nugi
Agreed, I read it and just got the feelig of some dude judging his friends.

~~~
thedevilslawyer
You read the last line? :

> disclaimer: I lied, both Bill and sam are actually me. All right reserved.

~~~
eesmith
In that case, what else is a lie?

FWIW, the article says things like "If you accept the issue as nuanced and
that all parties are well-intentioned, then you’re giving up the joy of being
the Good Side crusading against the Bad Side".

That means the introduction, "trying to unprovactively discuss a topic", is
also a lie. The word "crusade" is provocative, as we learned after G.W. Bush
used it shortly after 9/11, and the structuring of "all parties are well-
intentioned" vs. Good/Bad-Sideism, is also a lie, as those are not the only
two ways to structure this argument.

For example, one could argue about what "hostile workplace" means in the
context of civil rights law, what a company might need to do to defend itself
against an EEOC claim, and a discussion of what a "quite severe" incident
might be ("quite severe" comes from the EEOC guidelines).

Bringing up "political correctness" is also part of the provocative language
choice, as it is only really used as an off-hand dismissal of any challenges
to the existing status quo based on a history of white, male, rich power.

For example, if "political correct" had a broader meaning, then we should say
that politicians who defend the Constitutionally protected right to bear arms
far more than they defend the Constitutionally protected right to an abortion
are also being politically correct.

