[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?