Hacker News Reader

Comment by CryptoPunk | Hacker News Reader

Being held to account for your false accusations is not "tone policing", so please stop gaslighting.

I didn't write that women are "more emotional". I wrote they are generally "more emotionally vulnerable".

It's irresponsible to make extremely harsh accusations against someone when the analysis that the accusation is based on is sloppy and low-effort.

And as an aside, claiming that women are generally more emotional wouldn't be misogynistic, any more than noting that men are generally more aggressive is misandrist. There is nothing sexist about claiming general psychological differences between the sexes.

Your accusations are extreme mischaracterizations, and the basis of your dismissal of my argument is based on a weak/entirely-ideological heuristic.

View on HN

Let me suggest this then. Post your initial reply to a forum with a lot of women and ask if they find it misogynistic.

Adults can "read between the lines". Putting all your statements together draws a perfectly clear misogynistic narrative. No amount of deflection by trying to rebrand each point individually will make that go anyway.

I don't have time to run that experiment, and that wouldn't prove anything any way. Opinion polls don't tell us what the truth is about anything except opinions.

There is no misogynistic narrative between the lines. That misogynists would exploit the facts I am presenting to push their narrative does not make me uttering those facts misogynistic.

We cannot avoid certain ideas and discussions out of fear that bad people will incorporate them into the narrative they use to push their agenda. Their narrative has to be countered by presenting factual arguments, not by avoidance of discussion and suppression of facts.

> I don't have time to run that experiment

How surprising, I wonder why.

> Opinion polls don't tell us what the truth is about anything except opinions.

If you honestly believe that there's some sort of objective "exactly here is the line, don't cross it!" I feel bad for you.

> the facts I am presenting

Facts? It was a blatantly fact-free reply with your subjective "takes"; - "maybe the old times was better because I think women can't handle this new reality".

>>How surprising, I wonder why.

It's surprising to you that someone did not fulfil a request from a random person on the internet who has been rude and angry toward them, while mischaractering their statements, to post their argument in another forum?

I even gave you a reason why it would be pointless, and yet you insist on making this passive aggressive accusation.

>>Facts? It was a blatantly fact-free reply with your subjective "takes";

I made an argument based on objective facts. If you'd like to discuss my argument, or whether the claims it is premised on are factually correct, we could do that, but your tone and attitude suggest you cannot entertain the possibility that my argument could be right, and that instead you'll just provide more caustic and sarcastic quips.

> I made an argument based on objective facts.

If you think your first reply was based on objective facts you're delusional. It's full of your subjective assumptions:

> "We've tried the 'rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture, and the result is scores of women being used and taken advantage of because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally, to be their own advocate in sex and dating interactions."

From your very first reply, up until now, all you have done is personally attack me. That is not a decent or constructive way to contend with points raised.

Like I said, if you disagreed with the claims I'm making, about the psychological profile of a typical woman, or even what proportion of that profile is biologically determined, and expressed that skepticism in a polite and open-minded manner, I would have been happy to provide sources.

But you are not open to counter arguments enough to even evaluate what evidence supports them. Your position on this issue is based on a weak/entirely-ideological heuristic.

More tone policing and then avoiding answering regarding the "objective facts" from your blatantly subjective takes. Dishonest.

More gaslighting where you mischaracterize someone calling you out for your ad hominem attacks as "tone policing". I've already refuted all of your points, and you've simply evaded my points and regurgitated yours.

Let me help you then, take the statement I quoted:

"We've tried" = subjective

"rawr girl power, women can do everything men can do' culture" = subjective

"the result" = subjective

"because they were not capable, emotionally/temperamentally" = subjective

"in sex and dating interactions" = subjective

What do you mean "subjective"? These are claims about objective reality, which can be proven or disproven with facts. I think you're confused about what 'subjective' means.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com