> But does it target everyone _equally_ ?

LOL, wat?

Each and every case is unique, there is no equal in this.

I even gave an example, which has happened to me, to friends, to my wife equally...

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. The point that I am trying to make is along these lines: http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/8/13882562/online-hara...

Saying "it happens to everyone, it's not gendered" is ignorant at best.

From article above:

> yes, people disagree and are jerks. But they also tend to be much bigger, nastier jerks to women, people of color, and folks in other marginalized groups. Women and people of color can shrug off harassment too, of course, and often do. But they also tend to face more, and more vicious, attacks

"Women .. face more attacks" is what I mean by not equal. "More", meaning "not an equal amount".

To add to what tptacek has said, this everyone-is-lying position is not compatible with the discussions that this site is for. So if you'd like to have those kinds of conversations, they'll have to take place elsewhere.

My position isn't that everyone is lying. The person I replied to said this. I was demonstrating to them how easy it is to take that approach and have it turned against them. They replied as well, and understood what I was saying.

Maybe I should have been more clear what I was doing, but considering I know what I was saying and so did the person I replied to, I feel it's fair to say that assuming I was being negative and not understanding the context is also on those who disagree with what I said. Especially considering the status of the post that says all this in the first place.

Basically, I stand by what my comment says (assuming everyone is lying is wrong), and those that disagree with me are wrong.

You can't comment like this on HN, and by this point you should know that.

I was replying to the person who said the very same thing I said. I literally use their own comment to demonstrate how bad comments like this are.

Maybe I should have explicitly called that out for those that weren't reading this comment in context, but the person I replied to knows what I said, and they were who I was replying to.

If you are against this comment, you should also report the original comment that said this as well. It's here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13192777

Honestly, I couldn't even make sense of what that commenter was trying to say. But that's the trouble with counter-trolling! Just by being better at writing a coherent sentence, you can end up unilaterally making threads worse.

Fair point. If the situation would have been that bad, I'd probably had it recorded. Thankfully it resolved after talking to them or, in case of a random stranger, friends stood up against them.

but by targeting harassment properly you'd help all the groups at the same time.

Isn't that basically the ""everyone should get their fair share" argument?

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3du1qm/e...

thanks for the link, it was a nice read. i still have a problem with this:

> Saying "target all harassment" is dismissing the very problems that the phrase is trying to draw attention to

the problem is harassment. not just women harassment, not just racial harassment. isn't it just as dismissive to say "focus on these kinds of harassment, everybody else will just have to wait because they can consider themselves lucky enough to even be white males"?

they key bit is "targeting harassment properly". of course dismissing is not proper handling.