Please tell me what is "vile" about saying "I believe Susan, but this blogpost strains credibility. If the author is being honest, I hope she speaks to an attorney".
... is a privileged viewpoint, and offensive to me. The author doesn't have to prove to your satisfaction that this happened to her to write this article.
She doesn't have to, but putting it that way, people don't have to believe her.
Has the word "privileged" so lost all meaning that it's privileged to merely want evidence? I reject that I'm somehow contributing to an oppressive patriarchy by wanting claims to be substantiated in the post-Enlightenment way: with proof. People do make things up.
There's obviously no way to be sure of the story, but the speed with which people just presume it's fake speaks the overall lack of understanding of sexual harassment in the workplace. It's willfully ignorant to make that the basis for a discussion on this article.
However, HN has lost its mind if merely saying you don't believe a story is now flag-worthy. Why should the odiousness of a claim influence our evaluation of whether or not it's true?
I don't deny anyone wanting evidence that opinion, but I think it's also really easy for someone with the privilege of not having to deal with the things women in the tech workplace have to deal with to shut down articles like this one.
I think your point would've been better made if you'd written this comment first, instead of the privilege thing.
"Privileged"?
I'm not sure how or why you chose to take offense, but I'm surprised that anything about that was even slightly controversial.
> The author doesn't have to prove to your satisfaction that this happened to her to write this article
You're right, but that doesn't mean I have to believe what the author claims and doesn't mean I can't respond to it. The comment section doesn't exist to serve as an echo chamber.