Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
And you can't possibly see how a reporter could lead a conversation that way? You think that it's impossible to manipulate dialogue? How much money do you have, I'll be willing to bet that during a conversation over a few drinks I can get you say all kinds of incriminating things and use them to portray you as a bad person. Shockingly I don't even have to know much about you to do so, and the "reporter" knows more about the executive than is needed just based on the company he works for. Yeah, I know.. hard to imagine that attacking someone's livelihood would be enough to incite a response, but it happens pretty often. *hopefully the sarcasm is obvious*
Saying something is possible is not the same as saying its unlikely. The situation you posited is so extremely unlikely that rational people would not even give it thought. Hence, my diagnosis that you have Feminist Derangement Syndrome.
Oh, how the picture becomes very clear now. When the questions hurt attack the person asking questions.
You've now twice demonstrated to me personally (and three times in this thread) that you have no reading comprehension. With that as evidence, I conclude that your lack of reading comprehension is no longer just my opinion, it's a fact. See how that works?
I saw no journalism demonstrating that Uber was violating any laws. I saw no journalism to demonstrate that Uber agreed to ferry little girls smuggled into France to the various sex dens for abuse.
Where did anyone say any of that? The original claim was that Uber was partnering with an escort service. That fact is not in dispute, and was in fact advertised by Uber as you can see right there in the fine article. The opinion I'm referring to here is the claim that that behavior is sexist, one which I've said before I do not 100% agree with, but its certainly not exactly a "public accusation" that anyone should have to "back up" in order to be considered legitimate.
I say "You know, this one guy posted pictures of his ex to show people what a nasty person she was" and you reply "sometimes I wonder if I should do that."
Here's a quote from the Buzzfeed article on the current controversy:
Over dinner, he outlined the notion of spending “a million dollars” to hire four top opposition researchers and four journalists. That team could, he said, help Uber fight back against the press — they’d look into “your personal lives, your families,” and give the media a taste of its own medicine.
Those are a lot of specifics for someone who was simply egged on, and there's much more outlined in the article. But even without that evidence, you're making an enormous stretch trying to imply that somehow this journalist fed the guy those lines. I wonder where else you make huge leaps of logic in order to imply that a female victim brought something upon herself.
this is NOT journalism and Buzzfeed failed.
The only failure here lies with your reading comprehension, oh mighty arbiter of what is and isn't 'real' journalism. Maybe you should stick to Senior Systems Engineering.
The female journalist discussed made a public accusation
Please, please learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. It's the writer's opinion that working with an escort service is misogynistic. I personally don't agree with that, but guess what that's well within her rights to publish. There's no burden of proof on her to back that up. And the fact that Uber worked with an escort service is not under dispute - it was widely advertised by - get this - Uber. I'm noticing a very disturbing trend these days where anti-feminists start frothing at the mouth about "journalistic bias" wrt opinion pieces whenever a feminist viewpoint is put forward, using the language of libel or fraud in order to silence people who have every right to publish their (non-libelous) thoughts.
Was the dialogue guided to this point by the reporter? Valid question considering we see the one statement buy the exec and no other portion of the conversation. Context for dialogue is pretty critical.
I'm sure you think Anita Sarkeesian faked her death threats as well. Or rather, whether or not she did is a "valid question"
We can start by stating the obvious: It is never appropriate to use slurs, metaphors, graphic negative imagery, or any other kind of language that plays on someone's gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. Not only is such language inappropriate regardless of one's passion on a given subject, but any valid arguments that existed independently of such rhetoric should have been initially presented without it. Once a poster crosses this line, they should lose all credibility.
Similarly, it is never acceptable to dox, harass, post nude pictures, or in any other way violate someone's privacy due to disagreement with their opinions. While most people would probably agree with this in theory, far too many are willing to access and distribute this humiliating (and often illegal) content. Instead of simply viewing stories of doxing, slut-shaming, and other forms of online intimidation as an unfortunate by-product of the digital age, we should boycott all sites that publish these materials.