• snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
    23·
    9 months ago

    You wrote:

    The fact that a CEO took time out to try and engage and discuss this users fears and concerns should be applauded.

    The context of the post was that the CEO contacted them and then kept contacting them after being told to stop. You are cheering on a CEO repeatedly contacting someone to tell them why their opinion was wrong. You are criticizing the person who was harassed by saying the person who harassed them should be applauded.

    You were victim blaming, and they even pointed it out kindly.

    • sabreW4K3@lazysoci.al
      5·
      9 months ago

      Let’s look at events objectively.

      Person A: Doesn’t like something and so publicly criticises it.

      Person B: Asks for an opportunity to defend the thing and themselves.

      Person A: Says no

      Person B: Insists

      Person A: Then posts about person B on social media in a defamatory manner.

      Social Media: Well person B is a CEO, so it’s par for the course.

      Me: Actually, it’s par for the course that someone be given the right to defend themselves

      You: You’re victim blaming.

      Me: 🥴

      Honestly, I don’t give a shit either way. I don’t even know the name or URL of the search engine and I doubt I’ll ever meet Lori. I just posted my opinion on something that was in my feed. 🤦🏾‍♂️

      • Tracteur Blindé@beehaw.org
        17·
        9 months ago

        “Objective” timeline
        Omits the repeated communications that are the source of the discourse

        Seems like you missed some things in your first read of the Mastodon thread. That might be why you’re not getting the response you’re expecting.

      • snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
        15·
        9 months ago

        Me: Actually, it’s par for the course that someone be given the right to defend themselves

        You still don’t get it.