The work environment was allegedly sexist, and sexist comments were allegedly made, based on the word of a disgruntled former employee who in the recent past complained that the word 'meritocracy' is sexist.
Somehow I think the most reasonable opinion to hold is that of extreme doubt towards someone who probably encounters hundreds of 'horribly, deeply sexist' situations in every-day life.
You've almost gave a perfect example of ad hominem there, attacking her character without offering proof & using that as just cause for dismissal of her claims.
Fact of the matter is, it's too early to say whether she was wrong or not - that is the most reasonable opinion, which yours veers far off of. You weren't the one who experienced the things she claimed, so to dismiss it so quickly without offering anything nearing the level of claims she did speaks to your character more than hers.
You may be right. You may be horribly wrong. Whatever the case, you definitely don't fall under rational/reasonable though.
It's not an ad hominem at all. She made claims that are, for random internet speculators, fundamentally unverifiable. Indeed, her claims simply cannot be proven either way via discussion. It's little more than "he-said-she-said." In situations like this, you have nothing to go on but perceived trustworthiness. Prior events that might damage trustworthiness are not irrelevant.
Fact of the matter is, it's too early to say whether she was wrong or not
Obviously, but you can speculate and weigh the possibilities.
We have a disgruntled employee (who is no longer with the company) writing a piece attacking her former company and some people working there. That brings a lot of doubt over the validity of her claims already.
Add to that the hilarious debacle this employee created a few months ago over a rug that so brazenly included the terrorizing, offensive, gross word 'meritocracy' on it.
If someone thinks 'meritocracy' is sexist, might they also think a totally ordinary workplace happening is sexist?
My bet is on her claims of sexism being a waste of time (you do know that you can speculate on something without being totally sure, right?).
Just so you know, the word "meritocracy", is in fact a parody, but because bitter irony has led to its being seriously adopted by some people recently, there is general consensus among people actually studying sociology (rather than some dudes with opinions) that "meritocracy" really is sexist as well as racist. If you care to learn something new, you can look it up and understand why, rather than dismiss something based on ignorance.
Comments
finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007
Holocaust denial theorizers have better sources.
The work environment was allegedly sexist, and sexist comments were allegedly made, based on the word of a disgruntled former employee who in the recent past complained that the word 'meritocracy' is sexist.
Somehow I think the most reasonable opinion to hold is that of extreme doubt towards someone who probably encounters hundreds of 'horribly, deeply sexist' situations in every-day life.
You've almost gave a perfect example of ad hominem there, attacking her character without offering proof & using that as just cause for dismissal of her claims.
Fact of the matter is, it's too early to say whether she was wrong or not - that is the most reasonable opinion, which yours veers far off of. You weren't the one who experienced the things she claimed, so to dismiss it so quickly without offering anything nearing the level of claims she did speaks to your character more than hers.
You may be right. You may be horribly wrong. Whatever the case, you definitely don't fall under rational/reasonable though.
It's not an ad hominem at all. She made claims that are, for random internet speculators, fundamentally unverifiable. Indeed, her claims simply cannot be proven either way via discussion. It's little more than "he-said-she-said." In situations like this, you have nothing to go on but perceived trustworthiness. Prior events that might damage trustworthiness are not irrelevant.
Obviously, but you can speculate and weigh the possibilities.
We have a disgruntled employee (who is no longer with the company) writing a piece attacking her former company and some people working there. That brings a lot of doubt over the validity of her claims already.
Add to that the hilarious debacle this employee created a few months ago over a rug that so brazenly included the terrorizing, offensive, gross word 'meritocracy' on it.
If someone thinks 'meritocracy' is sexist, might they also think a totally ordinary workplace happening is sexist?
My bet is on her claims of sexism being a waste of time (you do know that you can speculate on something without being totally sure, right?).
For the rug thing: http://www.google.com/search?q=meritocracy+github+rug
Just so you know, the word "meritocracy", is in fact a parody, but because bitter irony has led to its being seriously adopted by some people recently, there is general consensus among people actually studying sociology (rather than some dudes with opinions) that "meritocracy" really is sexist as well as racist. If you care to learn something new, you can look it up and understand why, rather than dismiss something based on ignorance.