You missed the parent's point so entirely, it's as if you are an MRA bot posting the same old scripted comments no matter what actual discussion is taking place. He said that we could "have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt" and that we don't need to "frame the whole thing in terms of accusations" and your immediate knee-jerk response is to list all these imaginary accusations that are being "implied". Can you just keep an open mind and consider the possibility that, as the parent says, none of these accusations are actually being made? (If you don't find the parent comment convincing enough, perhaps look at your own "not usually stated" qualifier).
Theorique - to my eye, at least - was responding in kind to the academic arguments presented by lkrubner. He presents three possible explanations for the effect that lkrubner discusses. Nowhere in there is a value judgment, only three hypotheses.
A good rule of thumb for when a conversation has become personal and emotions are getting involved is when the word "You" comes up. Conversations that stay on a strictly academic level talk about the ideas involved, not the people who espouse those ideas.
Ah, the tone argument... I Am Too Emotional, causing me to use Incorrect Words.
Except, here is what lkrubner said, emphasis mine:
The same is true about this conversation, and _your reaction_.
See how we were, in fact, having a thread where we all address each other personally? How you made up an arbitrary rule to discount my comment just because it made you uncomfortable?
Next time, check your own emotional state before jumping with with a lecture on someone else's. And try to argue on substance, not tone, please.
Perhaps it's better to explain that as "the meaning received by some men".
As in, no specific criticism of white men may be intended, but some white men may experience a "call for diversity" as criticism, since they are well known to be the largest individual group in the tech industry.
Not saying that they "should" feel that way, nor that they are right or wrong for feeling that way, just that many do, and here are some possible reasons why.
You missed the parent's point so entirely, it's as if you are an MRA bot posting the same old scripted comments no matter what actual discussion is taking place. He said that we could "have a conversation about diversity in hiring without ever introducing the subject of guilt" and that we don't need to "frame the whole thing in terms of accusations" and your immediate knee-jerk response is to list all these imaginary accusations that are being "implied". Can you just keep an open mind and consider the possibility that, as the parent says, none of these accusations are actually being made? (If you don't find the parent comment convincing enough, perhaps look at your own "not usually stated" qualifier).