That's not victim blaming. And victim blaming is not always unwarranted, but you're presenting it as if it's always bad.

Do my comments really bother you so much that instead of comprehending and responding to them logically, your brain just short-circuits to spitting dismissive, insulting remarks?

I'm not blaming Sarah for the veiled threat that was made against her--I think it's petty and disgusting for an Uber executive to sink to the level of a gossip blogger. I'm just saying that Sarah is a gossip blogger and will milk this thing for all it's worth, so we can't just assume that she's being totally honest the way a private citizen would be.

Your comment did question the victim's validity. This may not be blaming in the literal sense of the word, but well within the expression.

The point of all this is that even if the victim was an unreputable person (which I have no reason to believe here, but even if) the data sifting and the threats are still wrong. Very wrong.

Some people still find it important that the victim's qualities enter the discussion, and this is what is meant by "victim blaming". We can talk about it, sure, and I'd be interested in what you have to say, but it's neither here nor there in this discussion. Otherwise we would spiral into "he did -- she did" which is not of value of anyone.

> The point of all this is that even if the victim was an unreputable person (which I have no reason to believe here, but even if) the data sifting and the threats are still wrong. Very wrong.

Agreed. If you follow the context of the comment thread, that's not the idea I was questioning.