What I Didn't Say

Does that mean 'do the same thing to everyone'? 'Equal' treatment can easily result in very unequal effects. For instance, if you put a staircase at the door to the classroom, everyone is being treated equally if they are all expected to go up the same staircase, even though that means some people can go in and others (people with crutches/wheelchairs/etc) can't. For another example, lets say public schools started charging every student the exact same fee of $10,000 per year: that would be equal treatment with a clearly unequal outcome, because some students started out in families that can afford the fee, and some didn't.

Also, advocacy is not 'restricted to women' - but there are a lot of people who feel it is valuable to spend their time and effort on programs for women. There are also programs for black teenage boys, for inner city kids, probably for Africans (and African-Americans), that get less attention. If you feel that you can see some disadvantaged group you'd like to advocate for, go ahead. If you feel that you don't want to advocate for anyone, also go ahead. But it doesn't make sense to say that because you don't want to advocate for a group/any group, or think the effort is not worth it for you, then everyone else has to agree not to do it either. (And besides, in many cases obstacles for one group affect other groups, so it doesn't have to be duplication of effort but shared effort that can be applied more widely - eg: increasing awareness that not everybody is likely to have a USA traditional-geek-boy-in-highschool background helps interviewers learn to avoid questions that rely on an assumption of that shared background, which helps everyone with non-mainstream backgrounds like women, homeschooled kids, and foreigners).

I think this is made worse when he runs Hacker News, and lets that platform be used in a very similar case to defend himself.

My original post references "First They Came" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...) That's not to suggest feminist bullying is anything close to Nazi Germany, but to suggest we all have moral duties to speak out for the powerless and abused.

Do you know that witch hunt still being a thing in some countries of the world?: http://www.eltiempo.com/colombia/medellin/ARTICULO-WEB-NEW_N... (title translated: Woman accused of being a witch in a town in Antioquia was burned)

This is a witch hunt: a woman was accused of being witch and _burned alive_, do you think that is even comparable with the tweets of Jacob Kaplan Moss?

"You assert that these studies exist, but you don't bother to identify them for those of us who are not au courant with the journals in which they presumably appear. Would you care to link at least a representative example of the studies to which you refer, so that those of us who are unimpressed by argument from authority may examine them for ourselves?"

The semantic value of these two rather long sentences being identical with that of the two words I actually posted, the only apparent reason to choose the former over the latter would be an interest in pandering to your prejudices. I harbor no such interest, and therefore feel no urge to replace what I did post with what you seem to prefer I post.

All that aside, the request stands. Do you intend to cite a representative sample, &c., or do you prefer to settle for the bare-faced argument from authority you've made so far, without even bothering, as I gather is customary in the use of that fallacy, to name the authority from whom you are arguing? "Studies suggest," after all, is rather weak tea.

Finally, there's probably a name for the fallacy inherent in tossing out an unsupported assertion followed by " -- now prove me wrong!", the way you're also doing; I can't be bothered to look it up, though. Between trying to find the studies to which you cannot possibly have referred more vaguely, and trying to do the impossible by proving a negative, I've got too much on my plate already; you'll just have to find the name for that fallacy yourself, I'm afraid.