Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwawayderp1 | Hacker News Reader

Respectfully, I think your rhetoric doesn't help the situation. It's not "gas-lighting" to be skeptical of the prevailing narrative that tech is a misogynistic boys club. The thing is, the harassment that Jessie is facing could literally be one person, right? Do you deny that?

Absolutely no one suggested "was okay in any way shape or form", but the fact that you used all caps really drove the point home for everyone who wasn't sure.

It's like, you get shamed if you even suggest that this might possibly be attributed to something other than "misogyny in tech".

View on HN

Skepticism is disbelieving something. Putting forward a conspiracy theory with literally no evidence (and evidence to the contrary) is not skepticism.

You didn't answer a key question:

The thing is, the harassment that Jessie is facing could literally be one person, right? Do you deny that?

I'm sorry, why is that question a relevant one?

Would it matter to the author whether it was one person or many in her specific case? Would it make the harassment any less troubling or alarming?

Would it matter to the general case, since the author's story of harassment is certainly not a unique one in our industry?

So what point would the answer to your question prove one way or the other? Not much. Which is also why OP's post is horseshit both from a rhetorical perspective and from a human perspective.

OP's theory is a minimization tactic. Oh, well the harassment is probably only one person. Oh, the harassment is probably by a troll or troublemaker who's trying to cause a gender war.

The author's case is not unique. In trying to minimize the source of harassment you are attempting to undermine the author's point.

She is being harassed for participating in our industry, and that is really fucked up. There are people in our industry who either believe this behavior to be acceptable, or they think they can get away with it.

So, once again, how about we dispense with the crack-pottery, either do something helpful or maybe just lay off the "add comment" button.

On the relevance of the question I saw one right away but I'll leave that until you make clear the various slurs you make do not apply to me here.

So you're interpreting my first three posts on HN as "trying to minimize the source of harassment"? Because that is a lie. If you persist in spreading it I'm likely to give up my embryonic life as a contributor here. I don't think you have any reason to do this to me or the OP, based on what he's written, but I get the idea. Nasty place to make a mark, despite the value I've accrued as lurker for a number of years.

The tentative interpretation of the OP makes the evil of the attack even worse than you think it is. Can't you see that? This doesn't make the OP's interpretation right but it's a clear consequence.

And nobody has answered another question of mine: the rules by which the OP has been suppressed and whether these can be reversed.

You're clearly not interested in actually engaging in a conversation, so, like i said before, i hope you can find ways to be excellent to others.

Have a good one.

That I found less annoying than your previous post. It's infuriating to be told that I'm not interested in actually engaging in a conversation when I'm sure that I am but it's less annoying than the implicatures in the previous one so thanks.

One thing it might be worth mentioning: my commercial experience of the software industry goes back to 1980. It's only with the advent of social media built on the Web that I've ever heard (those assumed to be) programmers express such horrific and hateful things to women. It incredibly bothers me.

Does that give some context for the kinds of things I'd be interested to discuss here?

I'd also still be grateful to know how exactly the OP became [flagged] though, thanks to jessaustin, I can now see it again personally.

Sure.

Everybody brings themselves and their assumptions to a conversation. All conversations are a negotiation over a shared space (however temporarily we may share that space).

I'm not calling into question whether you believe harassment is a bad thing or not (because frankly that's a pointless question to ask. Anybody who's asked point blank if they support harassment is going to say no).

The rhetorical structure of the conversation is what i am concerned about and steering the conversation around.

It is problematic from a rhetorical standpoint to debate whether or not the original author is being harassed by a single person or multiple people, because it distracts from the authors point, we can make no headway without further facts (which we are not privy to), and whether or not she's being harassed by a single person or multiple people is not pertinent to either the problems at hand or possible remedies.

So, then from a conversational point, one has to ask themselves what is the rhetorical purpose of asking the question? Is it intentionally to distract from the author's point? Is it to float & further the OP's theory? Is it morbid curiosity? Is it just carelessness or ignorance (and i mean that in the descriptive and non-pejorative fashion)?

Which of those are appropriate justifications for further pursuing the line of inquiry? I'd say none of them are, which is why i've been pretty vehement in knocking the foundation out from under them.

The door is always open for someone to supply a justification for why it matters and should be discussed, but skepticism isn't a good justification just the same way that pascal's wager isn't a good justification for believing in a Christian God.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com