[parennoob]

This entire essay is about how other people perceive a certain thing in a more extreme matter than would be warranted by logic, but the author makes the mistake of using the same extremities in his essay, thus nullifying his own argument. (Did that make sense? If not, it basically means: he is saying "there are a lot of nutters who are angrily responding to discussions about creepers and harrassment", but he doesn't really define what a nutter is, and by calling them a random pejorative term since they are disagreeing with him, he is making a similarly extreme statement.)

Let us examine some of his statements to illustrate what I'm talking about:

"What I'm doing is questioning the disproportionate and, to be blunt, disturbed anger that arises over this particular subject." ← What do you mean by disproportionate? Disproportionate compared to what? Plus, 'disturbed anger' s kind of a tautology, people are usually disturbed when they are angry. I have a hard time visualising 'undisturbed anger'.

I'm questioning why the — pardon me — hysterical terms like "lynch mob" are so quickly brought to bear when this is the subject. ← Hysterical itself is an extreme term. Why is he using it without clearly illustrating what he means? Maybe some of the people who are angrily commenting have suffered through accusations of sexism that they felt were completely unwarranted. Or they could have psychological problems. We don't really know.

"I'm questioning why on some issues — say, race — incoherent basement-stinking fury is relegated to places like Stormfront, but when it comes to sex it's alarmingly close to the mainstream." ← Alternately, it might just you who thinks that the largely mainstream thought is basement-stinking, another unnecessarily pejorative term, probably relating to the basement-dwelling unwashed nerd stereotype

"I'm asking why is it that if I write about racism, truly nutty and racist response are fairly rare, but if I talk about sexual harassment or sexism, I can count on being classified as a "white knight" or "mangina" or "pink shirt" or homosexual or something." ← Well, but you are similarly accusing those who disagree with your views as having "basement-stinking" fury, right?

In general, I this article provides little logical meat to chew on and more of the same extreme-termed language that it claims to be against.

(H'm, not sure why I was downvoted on this. Can the downvoter comment?)

[Dylan16807]

It's not the language that makes people nutters. They might have downvoted you for discounting the entire article for something that doesn't matter.

Have you never seen the reactions the article is talking about?

[parennoob]

I have seen a wide variety of reactions from people to this issue. They range from law-oriented, logic-oriented, or biologically-based viewpoints to exasperated "Damn, it, it was just an invitation to coffee!" types to completely illogical and counterproductive things like threats of violence.

My point is that the author here doesn't really say which of these he doesn't "get", but just blanket calls people who disagree with his viewpoint "nutters", and talks about "basement-stinking" reactions, and then claims that they are very common and says he doesn't get why. So he/she is really vague about the issue, and does not give any concrete data or opinions in the discourse relating to it.

EDIT: Another example, the last sentence of the article: "are these freaks going to keep jumping up and down on my lawn?" ← Do you think this is a measured, logical response by a person who is talking about responses to accusations of sexism etc. at tech conferences?

[Dylan16807]

It's not that people that disagree are as a class nutters.

It's that nutters are disproportionately attracted to certain types of posts.

And yes it is a measured response, there are almost always a lot of annoying nonsensical shouters whenever the topic comes up.

[parennoob]

"It's that nutters are disproportionately attracted to certain types of posts.

And yes it is a measured response, there are almost always a lot of annoying nonsensical shouters whenever the topic comes up"

This is what I disagree with. I don't think posts on sexism attract significantly more "nonsensical shouters" than posts on, say immigration, or abortion or any other topic. I don't have direct data on this, but neither does the article, which is why I'm questioning its propositions.

[Dylan16807]

Immigration and abortion also attract a lot of nutters. You realize you picked some of the most emotionally charged and stagnated arguments in the world, right?