[josteink]

> supporting the "right" of Somnez to attack women in tech

Clearly false, borderline slander.

Actually what Somnez did was trying to take heat away from a specific tech-women being attacked in a twitter flamewar, by instead creating heat for himself.

He did this by being generally obnoxious and impolite, and thus an obvious target to follow/tack on to instead. This part was clearly successful and the harassed woman got less heat for it.

However he told lots of tech-people to "shut up". The problem? Some of those people were women.

If he found their opinion offensive or racists, should he not have told those people off because they were women? Should he have treated them differently? Really?

Personally I don't think so. Because IMO that would be the text-book definition of actual sexism.

[Fellshard]

That seems to be a key distinction.

If I fire an arrow in the dark, and it kills a person of color, does that make it a racist act of manslaughter?

Of course not. Racism denotes the motive of the attacker, not just the nature of the victim. Both have to be present for racism to be a factor.

That may or may not apply here, but I would need to see the video. Regardless, I've seen the 'ascribed motive' attack applied practically nonstop during this whole debacle, conjuring racist motives on the basis of a person of color making an accusation of racism, and not any acts of Charles Wood himself, including the aforementioned video. If that was key evidence, no one has brought it forward.