3 ms·

I have no idea why you think my post history is "anti-woman" or that I hold "hatred of women". I think many of the arguments pushed by people who self describe

I have no idea why you think my post history is "anti-woman" or that I hold "hatred of women". I think many of the arguments pushed by people who self describe as "pro-woman" are nonsense, but that's not the same thing. ...the action of a fucking asshole... Contrast with what I said: "are we simply engaging in internet mobbing because...the CEO is kind of a jerk?" Unless the anonymous woman I described (and the anonymous writer at modelviewculture) is also a "fucking asshole", the "secret" part of investigating the reporter is not a problem. So investigating and reporting is "possibly criminal"? Assuming there is something more here than mobbing someone you dislike, I truly do not understand it.

DanBC 12y ago
> I have no idea why you think my post history is "anti-woman" You have never, ever, taken the side of a woman in any HN discussion. Whatever the situation you will always find some way to criticise the woman, even if it requires you to distort facts and construct wierd hypotheticals.
- SamReidHughes 12y ago
  Weird hypotheticals are a standard practice in philosophy. Also, 'yummyfajitas criticizes or disagrees with male people all the time too. It's only natural, if you omit vapid posts of agreement from your repertoire, that you're always going to be seen disagreeing with and criticizing people. Edit: Oh, I see that you've made these inane responses to yummyfajitas before. We can see an analog in your past comment: > You don't create as much discussion going the other way - there are no posts from you askng why society accepts most corporate boards having no women or asking why society accepts discrimination against people with Arab sounding names. All your questions are about why it's okay to discriminate against white males in these kinds of programmes. And yummyfajitas's reply: > No one on HN is defending discrimination against people with Arab sounding names. Perhaps the same sort of observation might be found on this axis of discussion? And this isn't the first time you've made some metacommentary aboutq yummyfajitas's posting history. This time it's "hatred of women", last time it was racism. What are you gonna try next time?
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  You have never, ever, taken the side of a woman in any HN discussion. Easy enough to refute: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539709 That discussion is almost the opposite of this one - the author spurred negative emotional reactions, but I defended her due to her careful definitions and reasoning. This one also defends a specific human: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312188 As samreidhughs points out, you are incorrect in this claim for a second time. My mistake, I remembered that comment, didn't remember it was you who made it. I pretty rarely defend a person of any gender, however. Most of my comments tend toward abstraction. I barely view the comments I've made here as defending Uber, and more as simply advocating against mobbing.

DanBC 12y ago

> I have no idea why you think my post history is "anti-woman" You have never, ever, taken the side of a woman in any HN discussion. Whatever the situation you will always find some way to criticise the woman, even if it requires you to distort facts and construct wierd hypotheticals.

SamReidHughes 12y ago
Weird hypotheticals are a standard practice in philosophy. Also, 'yummyfajitas criticizes or disagrees with male people all the time too. It's only natural, if you omit vapid posts of agreement from your repertoire, that you're always going to be seen disagreeing with and criticizing people. Edit: Oh, I see that you've made these inane responses to yummyfajitas before. We can see an analog in your past comment: > You don't create as much discussion going the other way - there are no posts from you askng why society accepts most corporate boards having no women or asking why society accepts discrimination against people with Arab sounding names. All your questions are about why it's okay to discriminate against white males in these kinds of programmes. And yummyfajitas's reply: > No one on HN is defending discrimination against people with Arab sounding names. Perhaps the same sort of observation might be found on this axis of discussion? And this isn't the first time you've made some metacommentary aboutq yummyfajitas's posting history. This time it's "hatred of women", last time it was racism. What are you gonna try next time?
yummyfajitas 12y ago
You have never, ever, taken the side of a woman in any HN discussion. Easy enough to refute: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539622 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539709 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7539709 That discussion is almost the opposite of this one - the author spurred negative emotional reactions, but I defended her due to her careful definitions and reasoning. This one also defends a specific human: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312188 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7312188 As samreidhughs points out, you are incorrect in this claim for a second time. My mistake, I remembered that comment, didn't remember it was you who made it. I pretty rarely defend a person of any gender, however. Most of my comments tend toward abstraction. I barely view the comments I've made here as defending Uber, and more as simply advocating against mobbing.