"This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system: given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it." Welcome to 2017, where crying wolf has no negative impact on them if proved untrue.
"Women and those sympathetic to the cause" Because by default, all women are automatically part of the cause.
"Consider the contra: if this wasn't an oppressive system, if there weren't real causes for complaint, nobody would care-- and so nobody would delete their accounts over the story." Of course, there's never been a case where a person has been really offended, got loads of people on side only to turn out to be false?
Regardless of her respect in SV, we can only look at the facts. Why is she the only person to leave Uber over this? Why have there not been previous cases of this? What evidence is there that the events unfolded as she suggested? All these things and more should be considered.
> Welcome to 2017, where crying wolf has no negative impact on them if proved untrue.
This smells like underlying bias to me, I'm afraid. Crying wolf in many of these areas has frequent negative impact -- hell, speaking out with good cause has negative impact. Who wants to volunteer to be at the centre of the next ethics in game journalism storm?
But this specific action -- choosing to no longer use the services of a company -- does have few repercussions, which does make it a good way to protest.
> Because by default, all women are automatically part of the cause
This could have been worded more felicitously, sure. Substitute "those negatively affect by the oppression and those sympathetic to them" and the point stands.
> Regardless of her respect in SV, we can only look at the facts.
As others have said, it seems you didn't look at the facts here. But regardless, the original point is not about the author, it's rejecting the idea that people are only able to delete their Uber accounts to protest the patriarchy because the very patriarchy they're protesting doesn't exist.
> This smells like underlying bias to me, I'm afraid. Crying wolf in many of these areas has frequent negative impact -- hell, speaking out with good cause has negative impact.
It said in a mocking sense, but given the benefit of a doubt - it's difficult to read intention.
> Who wants to volunteer to be at the centre of the next ethics in game journalism storm?
Lot's of people. Not everybody of course. There's lot of sociopaths/psychopaths that exist undiagnosed amongst us. I don't think that has any value in the argument as we really don't know this person.
> But this specific action -- choosing to no longer use the services of a company -- does have few repercussions, which does make it a good way to protest.
Ha! PR is one of the most important aspects to a company. Why do you think Google is so successful? Perception often outweighs truth.
> This could have been worded more felicitously, sure. Substitute "those negatively affect by the oppression and those sympathetic to them" and the point stands.
It was just a throwaway point about your default stance. We all have unconscious bias, I'm not holding it against you. My point was that we should all be aware of it.
> As others have said, it seems you didn't look at the facts here.
I've now read a lot of articles regarding this topic (it's interesting isn't it?).
> the original point is not about the author, it's rejecting the idea that people are only able to delete their Uber accounts to protest the patriarchy because the very patriarchy they're protesting doesn't exist.
> This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system: given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it. Women and those sympathetic to the cause of equality can easily delete their accounts and take alternatives, so they do.
But this isn't by definition evidence of that structure existing. Simply agreeing or disagreeing with a point of view can lead to the same outcome. And with "a really oppressive system", I would expect to see a much more solid foundation to the accusations.
Signs this may be false:
- No evidence of communications
- No witnesses to the events have come forward
- No names of the people involved
- No pursuit for legal rights
- Disabled comments on blog
- Uber directly addressing the blog (if they knew they were in the wrong, they would want this to go away)
- HR woman didn't sympathize with her accusations
Signs this may be true:
- Uber had an internal meeting regarding the accusations
- Uber are conducting an internal investigation
- Uber's history of being a tough working environment
"This is exactly the behaviour you'd expect under a really oppressive system: given a low-risk way to protest the oppression, people take it." Welcome to 2017, where crying wolf has no negative impact on them if proved untrue.
"Women and those sympathetic to the cause" Because by default, all women are automatically part of the cause.
"Consider the contra: if this wasn't an oppressive system, if there weren't real causes for complaint, nobody would care-- and so nobody would delete their accounts over the story." Of course, there's never been a case where a person has been really offended, got loads of people on side only to turn out to be false?
Regardless of her respect in SV, we can only look at the facts. Why is she the only person to leave Uber over this? Why have there not been previous cases of this? What evidence is there that the events unfolded as she suggested? All these things and more should be considered.