611–620 of 666 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course. They're not really asking if you need help, they're trying to interrupt your thinking and pressure you into making a buy decision on the spot.
Fair enough. Should sales staff never ask anyone if they need assistance?
I found this post deeply upsetting and alarming. I guess I am lucky that my co-founder and I run a B2B SaaS, and not a B2C company - in over two years of running a chat agent on our website and within our app, we have never had anything even close to this. Frankly, seeing the interactions on that blog post was like opening a door into some sort of hell hole. Maybe I lead some sort of cloistered life online, but I don…
The problem runs deeper than that. I'm a woman and have participated on HN for about 8.5 years. HN is one of the most civilized environments I have participated in. I still have men politely email me to essentially chat me up and otherwise don't want to engage me at all. I recently offered to let someone email me to discuss their issue. They were all enthused. We never discussed their issue. They basically wanted to…
You lost me on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem runs deeper than that. I'm a woman and have participated on HN for about 8.5 years. HN is one of the most civilized environments I have participated in. I still have men politely email me to essentially chat me up and otherwise don't want to engage me at all. I recently offered to let someone email me to discuss their issue. They were all enthused. We never discussed their issue. They basically wanted to…
> about 99% of men have only one reason You lost me on this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Harassment does not require "multiple". That's just wrong.
The dictionary of definition DEFINITELY does. (Caps for emphasis, not yelling.)
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/harassment
> Aggressive pressure or intimidation. ‘they face daily harassment and assault on the streets’
English doesn't have a definitive dictionary, anyway -- usage determines meaning. It has been the case for decades that a single quid pro quo proposal could be ruled as "harassment" in court. (As it should be!) Is it any wonder that colloquial understanding would reflect legal reality?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, people are colder and more abusive towards those less good-looking. The case described in the article is not due to beauty. It's because people think it's a bot or at least a fake photo. That's what irritates them.
Did you speak to the people in question or are you just speculating on the reason for their behaviour?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Why isn't HN condemning the harrassment here more unequivocally?"
That's not what I asked.
Either you have people replying to your rhetorical question and generating exactly zero discussion of value, or explaining to you why your expectation differs from reality. Clearly no one will do the first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of people who are saying implicitly and even a few saying explicitly that it is all men . There are plenty of people who would turn your exact same rhetoric back on you and say that if you think you aren't part of the problem, you just need to look harder, because it is all men , especially the ones who think they have a clean conscience. So in addition to proving my point about how berating the peop…
> There are plenty of people who are saying implicitly I understand you think they are saying all men , but unless you can read minds over the Internet, that’s just your opinion. But more than that, saying “men are sexist” does NOT imply “all men”. It means “a large-enough-to-be-generalized number of men are exist”. If you think it means literally all men (and hence feel attacked by it), in my opinion, on some level,…
"Women can't code"
Not only is it true for a substantial portion, it's true for the majority of women (and men, for that matter). But would you criticize those who object to the statement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for following up. I had to reply to your words, because of all the votes it was given and all the replies conforming my interpretation of your words as true for many and the effective burying of the real problem, even if you didn’t intend it. I’m VERY happy to know my criticism doesn’t apply to you, but it still applies to the thread. > Where were you earlier? Finding time to write a thorough and thoughtful re…
I didn't realize until you had posted that a large fraction of the upvotes were probably because my post had a dismissive tone. And I was feeling good about the upvotes until you pointed that out D:
But now I'm confused. How did your comment go from being #1 for many hours, and then drop to #31, behind a bunch of nothing-special comments? Did you suddenly get a bunch of down-votes? Did the YC team come in and penalize your comment to make this forum have better optics? Also, there were 101 sub-comments to yours, and now there are 86. Smells fishy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not what I asked.
The only direct question in your original comment is a rhetorical one. Do you really expect people to answer to that and not to your further comment wondering about the disparity between your expectation and reality? Either you have people replying to your rhetorical question and generating exactly zero discussion of value, or explaining to you why your expectation differs from reality. Clearly no one will do the fir…