You should abandon your throwaway and talk to some of your lady friends in tech about their experiences. See for yourself if their anecdotes build up into something approaching quantitative - and ask them if anything was ever done about their complaints - or if they even felt safe enough to complain to the people they ought to feel safe around.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Why would she lie about something like this? If she's lying then her career will be wrecked, and Uber will hit her with a defamation lawsuit that will ruin her life and finances.
