Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomlock | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

I didn't insist that.

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

I think its quite telling that you find a comment where I suggest actually talking to women to be meaningless unless there's the implication of offense.

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

Their experiences, anecdotes, complaints and feelings of personal safety are meaningless?

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.

Well clearly anyone who suggests taking a reasoned response to an accusation is clearly someone who would assault women.

You thought I was criticizing the content of his post? Incorrect.

"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?

No? Why would I argue that? It is a criticism. Just not of the content.

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 think this kind of thing is uncalled for when all the commenter just pointed out that we should wait for some kind of evaluation of evidence before pitchforking. The entire justice system in the US is founded on "innocent until proven guilty". In pitchfork-heavy threads like this, pointing that out should not result in an implication that you make women feel unsafe.

You are implying that women should feel unsafe around someone who suggests waiting for a legal resolution to a very serious problem before jumping to conclusions.

Do you think women feel more or less safe around people who, given an egregious example of harassment, instead leap to the defense of the six silicon valley companies they've worked for or to criticise the NYT?

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.

yich.

pointing out that we're an audience without legal standing, playing with pitchforks, is not harassment or condoning harassment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com