| > An attempt to justify why there are zero women listed (despite women making up 10-20%). You're arguing against a strawman with statistics that you yourself said that you only have anecdotal evidence for. Saying what one expects is vastly different than saying that something is justified. According to you, men are horrible jerks to women in this industry, so why then would you expect those men to honor women by listing them as people to follow? It doesn't make any sense. > Sure, you could interpret this either as... You didn't even try try asking what he meant. Instead you went with the full-on attack. You're setting a great example for the world of tolerant and open-mindedness that you're allegedly arguing for. > Back in reality, the playing field isn't flat yet so any talk of meritocracy is based on false assumptions. How will you possibly know if any one person is already in the proper mindset if you attack them when they say things that you actually agree with like "Gender shouldn't matter at all..."? No, you're right. Shoot first and sort them out later. > Uh huh. For criticising his comments rather than holding hands in a prayer circle? There you go again. You're arguing against your own assumptions. I downvoted you for your unwarranted vitriol, end of story. Have a nice day! |
Maybe (correct me if I'm wrong) you saw the "level up" comment as a personal criticism. Well my intention with that comment was to include @csvan and make it clear that he could let go of that opinion and grow. It wasn't vitriol at all.
As for the rest of your comments, I honestly don't know if you're trolling me or not. You complain about me using straw men to attack @csvan, then use straw men to attack me ("According to you, men are horrible jerks to women in this industry"). You complain about me not providing data, then provide none yourself. You complain about me not giving @csvan a chance to explain himself then downvote me without engaging in a conversation yourself.
What do you see as the root cause of this disagreement?