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