If that is not your argument, then I don't sure what you are trying to say. You specifically mentioned that the number of cases brought forward made you sceptical. So would have less cases of harassment been better evidence of systemic mysogyny? If not how many cases are needed to be sufficient?
How much evidence must we have, to make such an indictment?
Your position is basically unfalsifiable. It feels as if no matter how many people come forward, no matter how many women identify these issues, that you will just hand wave it all away.
When person after person after person comes forward, eventually that makes a pattern.
> that's for the courts to determine
No. It is also for all of us to determine. Everyone can look at the evidence, and decide for themselves if that is the kind of company that they want to answer recruiter calls from, or work for.
If you have some actual evidence to the contrary, that proves anything of value, then feel free to show it.
But don't just be a devils advocate, and ignore literally everything, that anyone ever brings up.
Eventually, if you see enough evidence, that proves a pattern.
Because you don't actually make any arguments at all, and provide no evidence to your position.
All you are doing is playing devil's advocate, and saying "I don't believe the narrative!", without actually providing any evidence of your own as to why it is wrong.
If you worked at blizzard at the past, or know people who have, and you know from talking to them, that they have different experiences, then that would be a different story.
But you don't have that. You aren't actually backing up any position at all, and you are just casting doubt, like a bad faith actor, without actually defending or justifying anything that you are saying, beyond "I don't believe the narrative!".
> what motives am I supposed to actually have
The motive would be the same motive that the "well acttualllyyy", devil's advocates have. You get to try to look smart, by going against the grain, and find irrelevant flaws in people's arguments, without actually backing anything up yourself, or subjecting your own argument to the same type of hyper, useless, deconstruction.
Happens all the time on hacker news.
> what motives am I supposed to have been pretending to have, and what motives am I supposed to actually have?
still baffled!
Your personal bar of it being “as broadly, uniformly terrible for all women in the company specifically” is irrelevant to just about anyone’s people’s definition of systemic harm, to the point that it’s very hard to take your argument as being in good faith.
> it's kind of off-putting how many different grievances are bundled together here—many different accusations about a wide variety of topics intended to paint a very broadly negative view of the company culture, everywhere from management to lower-level (male) employees. while I don't doubt that many of the grievances are true and merited, I have a hard time believing things could be as broadly, uniformly terrible for all women in the company specifically as the overall picture depicted here
I don't understand what my sex has to do with this evaluation—you said you hated to "play that card," but you didn't play any card at all, you just pointed out my presumed sex based on my handle, and didn't connect it to anything.