Yes.
But by the very same logic, I am free to comment on your irrelevant observations.
Right?
We’ll agree to disagree.
Your memory is faulty. As I explained very clearly in this post in that thread, I was offered a topic for debate, and was swayed by the arguments made. Indeed, several people initially shared the view that I was somehow arguing something different… but not all of them continued holding that view as the thread progressed:
It was inaccurate. I think “wrong” carries a stigma of some moral flaw. You were simply in error.
To review, you asked, “Is it problematic for women, in a thread called ‘Women: share your stories of having your crotch grabbed (when you didn’t want it)’ for women to actually share their stories of having your crotch grabbed (when you didn’t want it)? Is it problematic that the people participating in that thread didn’t want it hijacked by people determined to talk about something else?”
And I answered your question and went on to explain my view of what constitutes hijacking and how a subject develops organically in a thread…
Because the overall mission of the site is the fight against ignorance, and that fight is crippled in a medium that isolates assertions from challenge. I approve of the mission and want to work against a change.
Calling another poster – even me – a bad name is an example of a logical fallacy. It, too, hampers the fight against ignorance.
OK. Noted.
You say “obviously,” but in fact I didn’t know until now. So when you chimed in, discussing the phrase “…this country…” as being a place without a guaranteed safe space, to which country were you alluding?