[weberc2]

Sounds like you're (inadvertantly?) making the argument that sexism is purely subjective.

[zzzeek]

to a non-victim, perhaps.

[Chris2048]

In the same sense there either is a victim, or not a victim; then it either is subjective, or isn't.

There isn't "subjective for some" - there is just differing, and mutually exclusive opinion - a situation in which one party must be wrong.

[zzzeek]

"subjective for some" takes place when one particular party fails to look at a situation objectively. They are relying on subjective opinion and they are wrong.

[Chris2048]

In which case it's sarcastic, not literal.

Why not state directly what you believe to be the case?

Just say "that isn't the case, and you only believe otherwise because you are not a victim", them defend that claim.

[zzzeek]

Sarcasm is an effective and appropriate communication tool used throughout the history of literature and language. I was not aware that Hacker News prohibits sarcasm and i would argue those of us who rely on sarcasm to communicate in many scenarios are being unduly silenced.

[Chris2048]

Strawman. It's your opinion that sarcasm has been "effective and appropriate" in communication. In domains of importance, like law, is is notably absent.

> I was not aware..

Not the case, just more sarcasm from you. Those who argue unproductively are silenced in some ways, btw, in the form of mod restrictions and bans. Most of us are able to communicate more effectively and agreeably without sarcasm, and care to do so - why waste peoples time otherwise?