I submitted this article an hour and a half before this duplicate submission, and it got flagged to oblivion. Telling. But I'm glad to see it's back now.
I meant to respond to the response someone else made:
It's not a debate to be won. Some people just keep insisting it is with this cloying, sweaty desperation. It's embarrassing, and it's awful that these Silicon Valley ghouls have so much power that we have to consider them at all.
I read the article, it didn't have any real science and made a bunch of insane, half-baked assumptions. The guy is a dumbass and deserved to be fired.
Most people don't agree with the contents of the memo, or it's conclusion. But HN is filled with a specific breed of pseudo-intellectual that I will happily poke fun at whenever possible.
Isn't pseudo-intellectual a middlebrow term in its own right? In any case, commenters who use HN to posture over the rest of the HN community strike a rather silly pose. I hear Twitter is the place to do that for serious.
(I believe we already told you this elsewhere, but) you've been posting such ideological flamebait to HN that your comments amount to trolling whether you mean them to or not. This isn't a question of how right or wrong you are—plenty of your fellow community members are arguing the same positions as you without violating the spirit of this site. If you'd like to participate in thoughtful discussion, you're welcome to keep commenting here. Kindly fix this?
Admittedly these trainwreck threads have been pretty thin on thoughtful discussion, but even so, several of your posts stand out as poisonous.
The circumstances surrounding James Damore's "google memo" are a fairly clear indicator that we have a growing subculture of absolute ideological intolerance, especially in the tech industry.
How many times do we need Rust vs Go vs whatever debates? HN has quite a lot of repetitive discussions, and that's OK. When people get bored they'll stop voting things up.
"I am bored of this" doesn't seem like what the flagging mechanism is for, actually. Or would I be justified in flagging any story about Go because it happens to not be relevant to me and I think there's enough discussion of it already? Seems wrong.
If people weren't interested in responding and discussing, the article would disappear on its own. The fact that people are paying attention means there is more to discuss. It's really not up to you to decide. Flag all you want but that's a terrible metric to use to make your decision.
The key to changing minds is understanding the other side. Not shutting them out of the conversation.