> " it's the extrapolation of discrete events into a scathing indictment
How much evidence must we have, to make such an indictment?
Your position is basically unfalsifiable. It feels as if no matter how many people come forward, no matter how many women identify these issues, that you will just hand wave it all away.
When person after person after person comes forward, eventually that makes a pattern.
> that's for the courts to determine
No. It is also for all of us to determine. Everyone can look at the evidence, and decide for themselves if that is the kind of company that they want to answer recruiter calls from, or work for.
If you have some actual evidence to the contrary, that proves anything of value, then feel free to show it.
But don't just be a devils advocate, and ignore literally everything, that anyone ever brings up.
Eventually, if you see enough evidence, that proves a pattern.
How much evidence must we have, to make such an indictment?
Your position is basically unfalsifiable. It feels as if no matter how many people come forward, no matter how many women identify these issues, that you will just hand wave it all away.
When person after person after person comes forward, eventually that makes a pattern.
> that's for the courts to determine
No. It is also for all of us to determine. Everyone can look at the evidence, and decide for themselves if that is the kind of company that they want to answer recruiter calls from, or work for.
If you have some actual evidence to the contrary, that proves anything of value, then feel free to show it.
But don't just be a devils advocate, and ignore literally everything, that anyone ever brings up.
Eventually, if you see enough evidence, that proves a pattern.