3 ms·

I was using your requirement for analysing comments ('flag comments that can even be misconstrued as misogynistic') against your comment itself. You gave zero r

by vacri 9y ago

I was using your requirement for analysing comments ('flag comments that can even be misconstrued as misogynistic') against your comment itself. You gave zero reasons as to why women should have equal access to the workplace, only "I don't want to work with a bunch of men". I knew what you were getting at, but I was purposefully misconstruing your comment (and even pointed that fact out). Men have social issues to face. Just because MRAs are shrill and annoying doesn't mean that mature discussion should also be stomped on. We can also multitask - we don't have to fix on social ill at a time. It's also fantasy that we can get to your 60/40 split in only a few years - the staffing pipeline just isn't there, and preventing people from discussing issues until we reach that split is preventing them from discussing them for a decade or more, even in the best of circumstances. As for 'best behaviour', I think it's incredibly poor behaviour to simply suggest long-term complete censorship of a topic you don't like, regardless of the quality of discussion. Sticking your fingers in your ears is not going to get more women hired, anyway.

logicallee 9y ago
In my edit at the bottom of the comment you just replied to, I acknowledge that actually what you claim is a flaw in my argument is actually correct. By purposefully misconstruing my comment as misogynistic, you find a genuine flaw: you are absolutely right, I made a mistake by appealing to "do you, a man, want to work in an office full of only men forever?" rather than, "should offices discriminate against women and not allow them equal opportunity?" So even though you went out of your way to prove a point, actually we can improve how good of a place HN is for women through doing so. If you had phrased it as follows: "Logicallee, I want to make sure that you do not accidentally imply that the primary reason for allowing women to work at tech workplaces is for the benefit of men - you may want to edit your statement which could be construed (or misconstrued) this way", then do you see how, especially after I acknowledged it and maybe edited my comment, we would end up with a safer, more welcoming place that takes women into better consideration? So actually although you thought you were proving a flaw in my argument, what you were really doing is showing the strength of my argument by pointing out a flaw in a part of my comment that was not fundamental to the argument! This may be hard to follow. Imagine if I said "People could improve their orthographie by using more common words, rather than obscure Greek and Latin words" and you pointed out that I misspelled orthography, but if I had written "spelling" I would have written it correctly. So in this case the flaw (mistake) in my phrasing would have actually strengthened it. The flaw (mistake) in my verbiage that you point out actually strengthens my argument. I know we are making really nuanced arguments but I hope you see what I mean! I did take the time to see what you mean. We're really dancing on pinheads here, though.

by vacri 9y ago

logicallee 9y ago

In my edit at the bottom of the comment you just replied to, I acknowledge that actually what you claim is a flaw in my argument is actually correct. By purposefully misconstruing my comment as misogynistic, you find a genuine flaw: you are absolutely right, I made a mistake by appealing to "do you, a man, want to work in an office full of only men forever?" rather than, "should offices discriminate against women and not allow them equal opportunity?" So even though you went out of your way to prove a point, actually we can improve how good of a place HN is for women through doing so. If you had phrased it as follows: "Logicallee, I want to make sure that you do not accidentally imply that the primary reason for allowing women to work at tech workplaces is for the benefit of men - you may want to edit your statement which could be construed (or misconstrued) this way", then do you see how, especially after I acknowledged it and maybe edited my comment, we would end up with a safer, more welcoming place that takes women into better consideration? So actually although you thought you were proving a flaw in my argument, what you were really doing is showing the strength of my argument by pointing out a flaw in a part of my comment that was not fundamental to the argument! This may be hard to follow. Imagine if I said "People could improve their orthographie by using more common words, rather than obscure Greek and Latin words" and you pointed out that I misspelled orthography, but if I had written "spelling" I would have written it correctly. So in this case the flaw (mistake) in my phrasing would have actually strengthened it. The flaw (mistake) in my verbiage that you point out actually strengthens my argument. I know we are making really nuanced arguments but I hope you see what I mean! I did take the time to see what you mean. We're really dancing on pinheads here, though.