[ExI] privacy again
atymes at gmail.com
Fri Mar 11 01:18:18 UTC 2016
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:04 PM, PJ Manney <pjmanney at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of
>> research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did
>> actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as
>> had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of
>> that judgment, and more.
> On the contrary: it does not only affect famous women. That was the point.
> It affects 50% of the population
Please don't put words in my mouth. It harms the cause you are promoting.
I said "this case". Whatever the symbolic effects may be, no matter how
many others suffer similar problems, it is plain fact that far less than
50% of the population is directly involved in this particular case.
Pretending that I am speaking about the entire issue, when I clearly
limited my comment to the direct consequences of this one case, makes you
come off as the enemy of those who would otherwise agree with you. It is
stereotypical of so-called Social Justice Warriors, and that this happens
is one of the rallying cries of those who would denounce people like you.
You will get better results if you double-check what you are responding to
I believe the phrase is, "check your privilege"?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat