December 16, 2007


From Mathew Ingram's discussion on Lane Hartwell.
  • I find it offensive that Michael Arrington would interpret this argument as some kind of collusion between women. I now have to consider the gender of the person I support/disagree with, before making a stand? - in case I get thrown a "But since Lane is a woman, it really doesn't matter what she did as far as you are concerned. She's a woman, so she's right." That remark was uncalled for, Michael. Now I'm stuck, if I support them it's cos I'm a woman, and if I don't, it's because I'm making a point of not being tarred with the "chicks stick together" brush.

  • jeneane 12 hours ago with 1 point

    Welcome to Web 2.0 Laruel.

  • leigh 2 hours ago with 1 point

    Sexism 2.0 more like......(but seriously, how depressing is the personalization of an argument around someone's gender? I guess now all we have to do is wait for someone to up the argument sophistication level and start calling someone else gay or a retard)

  • jeneane 0 minutes ago with 1 point

    It is Very Depressing. The passively aggressive get to look like angels as they continue to invalidate any points made by others, casting dissenting voices as "negative" or "woman" or "whining" [pick your term]. Those others -- the ones actually exhibiting critical thought -- then get driven out of the discussion, and driven nearly crazy.

    Next, when the "negative" "women" "whiners" are brave enough to call the passive aggressive power elite on their B.S., they're labeled as mean for launching ad hominem attacks.

    Those who do the invalidating score another win. The minions kiss their asses. And the beat goes on.