[snowwrestler]

Fighting harassment is the opposite of collectivism. It seeks to allow each individual the greatest opportunity to express themselves freely, as themselves.

It is harassment--and the apologists for harassment--who advocate for a collectivist approach to society, in which individuals must cloak their true identities if they dare to challenge the herd, or be punished.

[roughly27]

>Fighting harassment is the opposite of collectivism. It seeks to allow each individual the greatest opportunity to express themselves freely, as themselves.

... by curtailing the freedoms of other individuals, in the name of group wellbeing.

Regardless of whether harassment is collectivist or not, I was simply pointing out that feeling guilty for actions of people in a similar demographic group to you (an overtly collectivist action) is currently wildly popular.

[snowwrestler]

The opposite of collectivism is not unconstrained individual freedom. Strong private property rights can hardly be considered collectivist, yet they constrain your freedom: you can only make decisions about the property you own. My property rights constrain your freedom to (for example) walk across my land, harvest my crops, or use my computer.

When a woman expresses herself in a substantive way, and gets 100 responses telling her to get back in the kitchen, get raped, etc., it is the harassers who are employing group-first thinking: something like, "she's a woman, so she should shut up and just do what I want all women do."

Gender-based harassment is essentially homogenous. Suppressing such harassment prioritizes the unique expression of an individual over the horde. This is analogous to how laws against assault and battery improve individual freedom of movement, despite constraining your freedom to punch people in the face whenever you want.

Anyway, the poster at the top of this subthread didn't even say he felt guilty. He just said, "Wish my gender weren't responsible for the vast majority of the harassment, violence, and threats of violence." That's just stating a personal opinion about a fact.

[etjossem]

Simply by virtue of participating in the same communities as others from our demographic group - in this case, Hacker News readers - we are part of a collective.

We can enforce our guidelines and keep the discussion civil, so everyone involved feels comfortable bringing new ideas to the table. Or we can let HN slip in the direction unmoderated communities usually go; rife with trolling, undue negativity, and direct harassment.

Whether or not to cast that downvote and show the trolls the door [1] is a choice we each have to make, but I for one feel an obligation to help build a civil community.

[1] https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png