• snooggums@midwest.socialEnglish
        23·
        3 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·
          3 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·
            3 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·
            3 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.