Remember to at least be open to the possibility.

I wrote this in response to your original comment, which seems to have been deleted, but it's worth posting here anyway.

You exercised your right to free speech by saying "A woman does what woman always do - seeking attention and throwing tantrums without any logical thought put into it"

I am exercising my right to free speech by saying that I consider your statement an abhorrent characterisation of women, and wholly unrepresentative of any of the women I've worked with in my 25 years in the industry at various companies of various sizes.

Of course, I've probably been lucky, because being an asshole isn't gender-specific, and I've worked with enough women that you'd think I'd have encountered one who was an asshole by now.

Maybe your personal experience does indeed encompass thousands of women and they have all genuinely behaved as you described, or maybe either your sample size is too small, or you should ask yourself if maybe there is a reason why you happen to perceive all women in this way.

WRT original comment, HN spits out dupes. I deleted one of them.

I used troll bait with this statement to actually show, in action, double standards on HN.

The OP made a generalisation for whole sex (men, masked as industry). I did the same but I got scrutiny where OP got praise. Get it?

Here's the kicker: I don't believe in both of these generalisations because me beliefs are formed on facts and data – both me and OP provided no such thing. We both just yelled statements.

I've met smart women in the tech industry. None of them would make a post like this (i.e. without any essence, just spitting out poison).

I've also met smart men. None of them would behave like men described by the OP.

On the other hand, my comment that you actually replied to is based on one of cognitive biases humans have.

Just as there can be inappropriate comments, there can be inappropriate submissions. This isn't some double standard. A proper response is not to be uncivil or troll in kind. If you think a submission is ill-suited for HN, just flag and move on.

I disagree.

Being wrong should never justify exclusion. Being wrong gets argument, not punishment.

Parent does not harass women? Parent gets to stay. Otherwise you show you can't be trusted with the power to kick people out.

Parent did just harass women. But other than that I agree with you.

Stuff like this is what makes people not trust SJ people.

Parent did not send women sexual messages. Parent did not stalk people. Parent did not photoshop girls with blood.

Parent had an opinion on the internet. If we can't even tolerate that, how can we be trusted to decide who stays and who goes?

(Note: if parent did any of the above, I retract my claim.)