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.
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.
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.
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.