So you can't dispute his claims with evidence so you are just going to insist that women would be offended by them. Seems legit.

I'm sorry. What evidence would be sufficient?

It depends on what claim you want to dispute, but insisting that women would be offended by what he said certainly isn't sufficient.

You implied it very strongly, and in the absence of that implication, your comment has essentially no meaning.

Well when you look at what you said to talk to them about, it really is.

No, but it is irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Earlier you thought I was insisting women would be offended by something, and you’ve since stated that if I wasn’t insisting that, my “argument” was meaningless. What did you think we were discussing?

Did you think that if women were offended, that would have been an argument for pitchforking? Were you saying I hadn't provided enough evidence women were offended? You haven't really said what you think is missing here, or even what you think I was getting at. Could you let me know what you think some relevant points would be? Is there any evidence that would persuade you of whatever it is you think we're arguing about?

I think I've addressed or asked questions about as many of your straightforward (if a little emotional) statements as I can.

Yes, when you said women might be offended by the statement that pitchforking is bad, that was clearly a criticism of the statement that pitchforking is bad. That criticism is nonsense, and you supplied no actual logic or evidence of an issue with that statement. I don't see why this is difficult to understand. Your response to someone advocating against pitchforking was clearly hostile.

"Understood. You should get your lady friends in tech to read the comments you posted on a throwaway. Do you think they'll feel safer around you?"

Are you seriously going to argue this isn't a criticism?

The only thing about a post that is rational to criticize is the content. What else could you criticize? The name of the person who posted it? The time when it was posted?

The blog post it was posted on? How posting it here would make people feel?

"The blog post it was posted on?"

Unless what you mean is that you don't want any comments on that blog post, this is actually a criticism of content.

"How posting it here would make people feel?"

Also content.

So you don't think the name or time is content, but you do think where the comment is, is content? Do you feel like if you make a comment in one situation, and then make the exact same comment in another situation, that the content of the comment has changed? Keep in mind that the time or name used on the comment may have changed - you've ruled those out.

Your line of argument earlier was that you thought I was against complaints about pitchforking. Have you abandoned that line of reasoning? I personally don't think the content of most arguments against pitchforking is objectionable.

Yes, if you post the same comment on two different blog posts the can have different content. Context matters.

I have not abandoned the line of reasoning that objecting to pitchforking is generally a good thing. You are the one who is arguing against a comment that objected to pitchforking. I don't even understand why you are asking this question.

I suggest you talk to your peers and see if they feel context is a subset of content.

I don't know who the strawman you are attacking is, but it's definitely not me.

>given an egregious example of harassment

I upvoted her story. It's a terrible case and it needs to be investigated ASAP.

>instead leap to the defense of the six silicon valley companies they've worked for or to criticise the NYT

The comment you are referring to is in response to the NYT turning a serious, specific issue into some larger political propaganda piece about women in all of silicon valley. Additionally, the NYT hurt her case by comparing it to one where a jury ultimately decided that the accuser was wrong.

>I upvoted her story. It's a terrible case and it needs to be investigated ASAP.

Maybe, just maybe, you should put this above the fold next time.

as a leftist... I can only feel the left is fucked.

on the other hand, I am arguing in a thread that contains that complete altrightgarbletwat banned below.

on the other other hand, your aggrieved-on-behalf-of-my-lady-friends stance is just so freaking overwrought and gross.

you're attacking a position that no one has advocated for, with the exception of the altrightgarbletwat. go bug him.

and final edit: by the way, the moral imperative I advocate for is to burn these companies to the ground and to scald capitalists with their own failures. it wouldn't matter to me if Uber managed a PR save here because Uber's shitty heart will not change and nothing of value will be lost when it dies.

do you get it? a system will do the bare minimum to exonerate itself and continue perpetuating the SV failures of greed and misplaced tech idealism: there's no story here because it doesn't fucking surprise anyone clued when someone comes out with yet another harassment story in tech and it doesn't fucking mean anything when some token firings take place over the next few weeks.

Uber will still be a piece of shit unsustainable company in a tech world coopted by greedy would-be visionaries, hopefully destined for the scrap heap in the near future.

my lady friends don't need you here. read up on performative allyship and then check a mirror.

You're responding to a post where I suggested a throwaway comment should be discussed with real people, irl. What position do you think I'm defending?