[coldtea]

Again with the weasel word ("meaningful") and the "no true scotchman" thing...

Is it only meaningful when it gets physical?

Or are violence threats and death threats, internet mob justice, bullying and the like is not "meaningful harassment" if it happens to men?

And why would that be?

Is that because most attacks on men are mere jokes, or maybe most men are thick-skinned Rambos that just brush them off?

And, the corollary, is that because most attacks on women are real-world threatening, or most women are little delicate creatures that can't take a verbal/written attack?

I find it hard to agree with either idea.

Maybe there's some other possible intended meaning behind this "meaningful harassment" notion that I've missed?

[tptacek]

It's "No True Scotsman".

I'm not interested in the noodling semantic argument. Don't bullshit me. You're not getting anywhere with it.

I stand by everything I've said on this thread. Anyone who suggests men in this industry deal with harassment of the same kind women do should be embarrassed. Will, inevitably, be embarrassed. I'll happily sign my own name to that.

[Nadya]

The patronizing correction isn't needed given they had it right the first time. The second time was likely an uncaught typo.

>in other words, sort like the "no true scotsman" fallacy).

Further, you don't seem interested in any form of conversation. I can't say you're posting in good faith - but rather have already made your mind certain of something with no intentions of discussing it. Calling others names and taking the moral high ground, even when that moral high ground has little to no basis in reality and you've been given evidence otherwise.