3 ms·
The bit about retaliation was in regards to "(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..)" -- not the body of your commen
by crux_ 17y ago
The bit about retaliation was in regards to "(I'm a little concerned this may be too outspoken for my own good, but here goes..)" -- not the body of your comment.
"Why's that reason to anonymize?"
Giving their names makes the story about a couple of exceptionally bad eggs; omitting their identities makes the story about a broad trend.
- akkartik 17y agoFair point. I still think she should publicize their names, but the NYTimes shouldn't include them. Even if you're responding to my parenthetical first sentence, I don't see how that has anything to do with 'anti-anti-sexism'. I was just articulating the concern anybody should have for seeming like a troublemaker. There's a fine distinction between being outspoken and a troublemaker. The latter is just looking for a reason to seem outspoken - a distracting influence at a startup.