[enneff]

Are you aware of how patronising this response is? If you want to make a comment about the nature of power, make it. Don't tell me to think more carefully.

I'm not sure precisely which event you're saying she initiated, but if you're talking about her quitting her job and then speaking out like this: you should think about why someone would put their reputation and livelihood on the line.

[pgeorgi]

"If you are one of the people in this thread jumping to defend GitHub in this situation, ask yourself why."

"If you want to make a comment about [...], make it. Don't tell me to think more carefully."

Pot, meet kettle.

[enneff]

Difference is I don't actually know why people are defending GH here, whereas the other commenter has something specific to say to me about power (and they did).

[stoptalkingshit]

The nature of power is that the person who sets the ball rolling is the one in power. That's why a sculptor is the one with the power, not the chisel. The fact that there's some appearance of backlash doesn't alter that. And as to which chain of events, how could I be any clearer? The chain of events starting with her deciding to go public. The rest of your comment is just shallow moralizing that doesn't tell us anything about who has the power. I suppose you're the one to always side with the crying woman, because that's as deep as your understanding of power goes. It doesn't occur to you that tears themselves have power.

[grifpete]

The chain of events did not start with 'her deciding to go public.' In fact neither of us know what started this ugly mess. But one thing we do know is that it started long before she went public. For example, the actions of the founder's wife were long before, as were many other hostile acts that have been alleged.

[enneff]

The chain of events that begins with her going public is part of a larger chain of events, which includes her employment at GitHub and the events she has described. That was not clear for your comment, and has large ramifications about who started what.

My position is simply that defending GitHub and dissecting her story is unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. GitHub will respond, and presumably more information will be brought forward by other parties. I will reserve judgement (not that it's really my place to judge at all!) until more of the story has emerged.

Your characterisation of my position betrays your sexist bias. Of course anyone with a voice has power. But why would someone quit their job and ignite a shitstorm of drama unless something really bad had happened to them? Some benefit of the doubt and empathy for Horvath seems appropriate at this junction.

[tomp]

> Your characterisation of my position betrays your sexist bias.

If you accuse someone of something so serious and cringe-inducing, you should at least try to argument/substantiate it.

[stoptalkingshit]

Hilarious that you run the same tactic of accusing me of being "sexist" to discredit me. Nor does your response address anything other than your own deranged imaginings. I didn't say something bad didn't happen to them. What I said was that the she is not powerless. You tried to cast her as powerless - you were quite clear on this, and you were wrong. And somehow in your deranged, imbecilic mind pointing that out that is "mischaracterizing" your point-of-view, whereas rabbiting on about things I never even said and accusing me of being a "sexist" is not. All I can say is: LOL

[enneff]

I didn't say she was powerless. I said that GitHub has the power. On balance, they do.