Haha, you're the first to try to apply it recursively! That's kind of why I employed satire, to make people think. My move is simple. Do nothing. My satire fai

Haha, you're the first to try to apply it recursively! That's kind of why I employed satire, to make people think. My move is simple. Do nothing. My satire fails its own test when applied to itself as I make clear what I am looking for and what is unacceptable, emphasized with satire. I clearly value an argument when folks make a good faith effort to argue for an alternative position, make constructive criticism, elaborate on the source of their concerns, or reveal their intentions. No hidden intentions from me. As for the example: I thought the satire had made it very clear that the alternate solution is to have the would-be-saboteur reveal their alternate position, make constructive criticism, elaborate on the source of their concerns (ex: like you've done above), or reveal their intentions. So my satire also fails my own test that way. Again, no hidden intentions, clear alternatives. Since you made your position clear, we can now have a constructive argument about a myriad of things: the role of perceived gender in society, cultural norms, morality of honest mistakes, etc. And I don't have to be guessing a position on your behalf while also defending a position I never took. If you let me pick for you, and you pick for me, that's not a discussion. It's basically a giant post about intellectual honesty and good faith discussions.