4 ms·

So to draw a parallel to the current argument, are you claiming that no woman has been abused by a man simply for doing a better job than them?

by tomlock 10y ago

gozur88 10y ago
By "a" man? Maybe. By multiple men? No. Back to the religion thing... did you know God loves you and wants you to send me money? You don't really have grounds to disbelieve that, do you? I mean, facts and evidence?
- tomlock 10y ago
  So your argument is that only one man (at a time, in a lifetime? unsure here) will attack a woman for this? Earlier: > Nobody gets harassed because they're good at their job and go out teaching others etc, etc. The mental gymnastics you're doing to find a way to disbelieve this whole article are impressive. But ultimately, you're tripping over your own feet.
  - gozur88 10y ago
    Yes, I did say that. The point being there's always one crazy person in any large crowd. But you don't get a lot of people sending you ugly tweets just because you're contributing to a software effort. The mental gymnastics you're doing to fit this into your world view are impressive. But it's really coming across as facile virtue signaling. You seem to be suspending rudimentary common sense in an effort to believe that which is unbelievable.
    - tomlock 10y ago
      You've used a lot of emotive words - like the article seems "fishy" or that you don't believe this article due to "experience" and now that believing this account defies "rudimentary common sense". I can think of a lot of instances in which "common sense" has been invoked as short hand in an argument where the people involved simply can't explain why they disbelieve the opposition. You seem to quite often attempt to signal that you are aligned with an unbiased and rational view, but you seem to just discard arguments based on your emotions. There's been a few threads on this article that you've abandoned. Its becoming more and more clear its because you simply can't satisfyingly state the reasons for your judgements. > But you don't get a lot of people sending you ugly tweets just because you're contributing to a software effort. Again, source? Or is this another one we can tack down to "common sense".
      - gozur88 10y ago
        >You've used a lot of emotive words - like the article seems "fishy" or that you don't believe this article due to "experience" and now that believing this account defies "rudimentary common sense". "Fishy" isn't at all an emotive word. And of course I don't believe I used the word "rudimentary". >You seem to quite often attempt to signal that you are aligned with an unbiased and rational view, but you seem to just discard arguments based on your emotions. I'm not the one making emotional arguments. This is the situation: 1. Woman does her job very well. 2. ??? 3. Harassment. Obviously if step 1 is actually true there's a step 2. You want to be the white knight and protect her, emotionally. But that's infantilizing her. >There's been a few threads on this article that you've abandoned. Its becoming more and more clear its because you simply can't satisfyingly state the reasons for your judgements. That's silly. At this point you just keep repeating yourself without addressing anything I've written. Couple that with the timeout on HN they've added to discourage this conversation and it's literally not worth the trouble, so I'm going to end it here. Of course you're welcome to reply, though frankly I'll be very surprised if you include anything new. >Again, source? Or is this another one we can tack down to "common sense". Again, do I really need a "source" to explain to you people don't do things for no reason? Really?
        tomlock 10y ago
        > And of course I don't believe I used the word "rudimentary". > You seem to be suspending rudimentary common sense in an effort to believe that which is unbelievable. Maybe, just maybe, what you believe and what is actually true are two entirely different things. Calm down.

So to draw a parallel to the current argument, are you claiming that no woman has been abused by a man simply for doing a better job than them?

by tomlock 10y ago

So to draw a parallel to the current argument, are you claiming that no woman has been abused by a man simply for doing a better job than them?

gozur88 10y ago

By "a" man? Maybe. By multiple men? No. Back to the religion thing... did you know God loves you and wants you to send me money? You don't really have grounds to disbelieve that, do you? I mean, facts and evidence?

tomlock 10y ago
So your argument is that only one man (at a time, in a lifetime? unsure here) will attack a woman for this? Earlier: > Nobody gets harassed because they're good at their job and go out teaching others etc, etc. The mental gymnastics you're doing to find a way to disbelieve this whole article are impressive. But ultimately, you're tripping over your own feet.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Yes, I did say that. The point being there's always one crazy person in any large crowd. But you don't get a lot of people sending you ugly tweets just because you're contributing to a software effort. The mental gymnastics you're doing to fit this into your world view are impressive. But it's really coming across as facile virtue signaling. You seem to be suspending rudimentary common sense in an effort to believe that which is unbelievable.
  - tomlock 10y ago
    You've used a lot of emotive words - like the article seems "fishy" or that you don't believe this article due to "experience" and now that believing this account defies "rudimentary common sense". I can think of a lot of instances in which "common sense" has been invoked as short hand in an argument where the people involved simply can't explain why they disbelieve the opposition. You seem to quite often attempt to signal that you are aligned with an unbiased and rational view, but you seem to just discard arguments based on your emotions. There's been a few threads on this article that you've abandoned. Its becoming more and more clear its because you simply can't satisfyingly state the reasons for your judgements. > But you don't get a lot of people sending you ugly tweets just because you're contributing to a software effort. Again, source? Or is this another one we can tack down to "common sense".
    - gozur88 10y ago
      >You've used a lot of emotive words - like the article seems "fishy" or that you don't believe this article due to "experience" and now that believing this account defies "rudimentary common sense". "Fishy" isn't at all an emotive word. And of course I don't believe I used the word "rudimentary". >You seem to quite often attempt to signal that you are aligned with an unbiased and rational view, but you seem to just discard arguments based on your emotions. I'm not the one making emotional arguments. This is the situation: 1. Woman does her job very well. 2. ??? 3. Harassment. Obviously if step 1 is actually true there's a step 2. You want to be the white knight and protect her, emotionally. But that's infantilizing her. >There's been a few threads on this article that you've abandoned. Its becoming more and more clear its because you simply can't satisfyingly state the reasons for your judgements. That's silly. At this point you just keep repeating yourself without addressing anything I've written. Couple that with the timeout on HN they've added to discourage this conversation and it's literally not worth the trouble, so I'm going to end it here. Of course you're welcome to reply, though frankly I'll be very surprised if you include anything new. >Again, source? Or is this another one we can tack down to "common sense". Again, do I really need a "source" to explain to you people don't do things for no reason? Really?
      - tomlock 10y ago
        > And of course I don't believe I used the word "rudimentary". > You seem to be suspending rudimentary common sense in an effort to believe that which is unbelievable. Maybe, just maybe, what you believe and what is actually true are two entirely different things. Calm down.