> Uber explicitly talked about going after reporters' families.

> The obvious implication is that they were going after her kids.

Obvious implication? I think it's more of a convenient assumption you're making to suit your own personal grudge against Uber.

The comments he made were clearly idiotic, but your eagerness to interpret them in the most extreme and sensational way possible is no better.

Please explain the NON "extreme and sensational" way to interpret comments talking about spending one million dollars to target, intimidate, and smear the press and to dig up dirt on their families.

What's really cute is that even Uber doesn't even deny that this happened. No, that's all on you, dear HN commenter.

Didn't the parent post already explain? The journalist writes details about people personal lives for a tech gossip site. The Uber person is non seriously (even accordion to the article) musing over what would happen if the company was to do the same thing back. No conspiracy theory needed.

> "It's clear you're just another bored, delusional social justice warrior who wants to make a cause out of nothing."

No. Just no. This type of behavior is unacceptable around here - it may be in vogue around /r/TumblrInAction or GamerGate but it has no place here.

If you want to attack the substance of someone's argument fine but personal attacks, especially name calling are completely out of bounds in any sane venue of discussion. And note that Asparagirl has not attacked you personally throughout this entire conversation, much less resort to juvenile name-calling.

Personal side note: the "SJW" insult removes any shred of credibility you may have had.

"bored" and "delusional" are personal attacks, but isn't "SJW" about the argument? Has that term become totally muddled when I wasn't paying attention?

SJW is only ever used as an insult. On HN it's a useful signal of a useless post.