Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

[flagged]



[flagged]


please point out where I dismissed any allegations, and please keep your personal ad hominem attacks to a minimum


[flagged]


[flagged]


> why are people taking such strong issue with this position

Because you don't actually make any arguments at all, and provide no evidence to your position.

All you are doing is playing devil's advocate, and saying "I don't believe the narrative!", without actually providing any evidence of your own as to why it is wrong.

If you worked at blizzard at the past, or know people who have, and you know from talking to them, that they have different experiences, then that would be a different story.

But you don't have that. You aren't actually backing up any position at all, and you are just casting doubt, like a bad faith actor, without actually defending or justifying anything that you are saying, beyond "I don't believe the narrative!".

> what motives am I supposed to actually have

The motive would be the same motive that the "well acttualllyyy", devil's advocates have. You get to try to look smart, by going against the grain, and find irrelevant flaws in people's arguments, without actually backing anything up yourself, or subjecting your own argument to the same type of hyper, useless, deconstruction.

Happens all the time on hacker news.


You literally answer your own bafflement in what you typed. You said it’s a flimsy case for any systemic issues, indicating you believe this to be a collection of one-offs rather than systemic ones if you then believe the individual cases.


yes, so again:

> what motives am I supposed to have been pretending to have, and what motives am I supposed to actually have?

still baffled!


I’m saying your top level statement quoted below is harmful regardless of your motives because it works to minimize and excuse the impact and veracity of the accusations (which you yourself are not disputing individually). What your motives are for doing so is besides the point.

Your personal bar of it being “as broadly, uniformly terrible for all women in the company specifically” is irrelevant to just about anyone’s people’s definition of systemic harm, to the point that it’s very hard to take your argument as being in good faith.

> it's kind of off-putting how many different grievances are bundled together here—many different accusations about a wide variety of topics intended to paint a very broadly negative view of the company culture, everywhere from management to lower-level (male) employees. while I don't doubt that many of the grievances are true and merited, I have a hard time believing things could be as broadly, uniformly terrible for all women in the company specifically as the overall picture depicted here




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2025 batch! Applications are open till May 13

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: