[richmarr]

The only logical approach is to demand rigor in situations that demand it. For me this is not one of those situations, because the cost (to me) of the OP being mistaken in her conclusions or actions is zero, as it should be to you. So we logically we should support her because if she's right we all benefit.

For some reason something about the OP's position has made you angry and defensive, as demonstrated by the lengthy replies you've made to a number of people, in my case containing some quite personal comments. Up to you, but I'd suggest taking some time to explore why that is.

[ObviousScience]

I'm actually very supportive of the effort to make safe spaces for women in tech.

Rather, I'm unhappy the OP is going out of her way - to the point of making a separate post about it - trying to appropriate values common to other world views as being inherently feminist. I don't think that's empirically true, and I think that's pretty clear from the fact no one factually corrected me and attacked me for asking about it.

Rather, her comment classic "othering" of people you disagree with, and is not how we should conduct ourselves on sensitive topics such as sexism.

[richmarr]

> Rather, I'm unhappy the OP is going out of her way - to the point of making a separate post about it - trying to appropriate values common to other world views as being inherently feminist

So you felt "othered" and didn't like it. That's natural, and fine. I feel the same way sometimes. It's clear that others here do too.

Where you're hitting turbulence is rationalising that emotional response and building hard logic on top of that soft foundation.

It's actually fine for feminists to appropriate values. It doesn't stop anyone else using them. Sure, we can resent the implication that we don't hold those values, but the way to deal with that insecurity is by proving it to yourself. If you're human-centred, be human-centred. If you know, other people will know too.

It's hard. I suck at it too.

[ObviousScience]

I think we both know that if I had made the implication in the reverse direction, everyone here would be lecturing me in response on how I shouldn't be othering people I disagree with.

I think the response to me has shown that people weren't objecting to the question I asked and instead because I dared to call out such behavior from a feminist, instead of Approved Bad Guys(tm). Read up to where someone posted a study agreeing with me to tell me I was wrong.

I have two objections to her comment:

1. It's empirically untrue, and that does us no service if we're concerned with actually solving the problem. As the study cited to me points out, many of the problems related to sexism are actually caused by confounding factors in the community, and not necessarily just because a few problematic actors are sexist. Similarly, my point was that solutions are often about addressing these confounding factors, such as reducing the undue influence of problematic actors (eg, posting way more than most people).

2. No, I don't think it's okay for feminists to use propaganda tactics regularly used by groups to "other" people they don't like just because we agree with the goals the feminists have, and I think such poor behavior should be called out when anyone does it - including people we agree with. We may just have a difference of opinion here on what's acceptable, but you've been incredibly dismissive of me simply having a different opinion on what's appropriate conduct and attacked me personally for it. I regard this, too, as poor conduct.

I think at this point, everyone responding to me has shown two things:

1. They're not concerned if "feminism" (no one even seems to be clear what that means in this context) actually fixes the named problem of having safer spaces for women in online communities, they're supporting the claim for ideological reasons, not because it's true. All the data actually suggests that changes to the community orthogonal to the concerns of feminism have the dominant effect on the comfort level of women in the community, because they serve to amplify or diminish the role of problematic actors (of several stripes).

2. People who are supporting her comments aren't interested in actually engaging with others, and will use all kinds of fallacies, irrationalities, and outright abuse to try and shout down opinions that don't fit with with their chosen ideology.

I think we should expect better from people.

[richmarr]

I guess it's not surprising that you feel like I've been attacking you, but I'm really not. At no point have I criticised your character or said anything that should be insulting (unless your self-esteem is bound up with being right, which is justifiably not my problem). I admit that me not engaging with your arguments must be frustrating, but I hold firm to my position because you have consistently missed the point in your replies.

Unpicking this stuff is hard, especially for the person under the looking glass. I guess it was arrogant of me to try to get you to buy into this perspective, especially in a HN thread.

Best of luck to you.

[ObviousScience]

You're simply being dishonest if you're going to say you weren't subtly attacking my credibility to even speak on the topic in your replies. An implied ad hominem is still an ad hominem.

They have been nothing but condescending responses with the implication I'm being unreasonable, but without actually engaging with what I'm saying in response in any manner, pointing out what specifically I've said that's unreasonable, or anywhere that any of my statements haven't been accurate.

You've been extremely rude, and I wouldn't be surprised if you often get negative responses if you interact with people in this style.

None the less, I wish you well and hope that you learn to interact sincerely with people about topics, rather than feeling the need to preach at them.