4 ms·
My opinion is that this anonymous post lacks credibility and the author is most likely LARPing. Is it really so offensive to have a skeptical view? > It was no
by throewai 10y ago
My opinion is that this anonymous post lacks credibility and the author is most likely LARPing. Is it really so offensive to have a skeptical view?
> It was normal for guys to refer to other guys as fags when they didn’t participate in private parties where sex and drugs were involved. It was normal for guys to openly refer to attractive female colleagues as sluts when they refused to go out with them.
- rodgerd 10y agoSays the three minute old throwaway account.
- idiot_stick 10y ago>Says the three minute old throwaway account. Are you trying to be ironic by dismissing the critic's anonymity while accepting the author's?
- hwillis 10y agoPointing out hypocrisy is not hypocritical. In criticizing anonymously, the commenter is acknowledging that there are reasons to remain anonymous. Pointing out that the account is new is not meant to invalidate it's commentary. It is meant to demonstrate that it is self-contradicting.
- vkou 10y agoThe author just bared an intensely personal and traumatic experience, that historically, has served as an open door to abuse, doxing, not to mention legal threats and discrimination from future employment, when the post is inevitably connected to her identity. The three-minute old account making a comment from the peanut gallery did nothing of the sort. The two are not at all equivalent.
- minimaxir 10y agoOdd choice for evidence of fabrication, as that quote echoes Susan Fowler's original post.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- throewai 10y ago> “There is no place for ethics in this business sweetheart. We are not a charity.” This is obviously fake.