It's really heartening that you took that away from this post. If you're willing to look at why you hold that viewpoint and examine whether it's a valid one by listening to/reading what's being said, then no, you're not part of the problem. You had a mistaken assumption, that's all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "reprocessed the first pass". Are you saying you read the comment, insulted her grammar as a means of justifying why saucisson attacked her, then read it again and understood that the grammar was correct? Because the process you're giving me now does not include the "accuse her of typing…

And even after all those justifications, the page is STILL filled with people telling said woman she's in the wrong and handled it wrong and it was her fault. Sigh.

If you can't understand the meaning of a sentence because it's in lowercase instead of capitalized, that's not on the author, it's on you. It's certainly on you if you actively say that the author is impeding understanding, when every word was spelled correctly and all punctuation was in the right place. It's one…

I am not in contact with my father and haven't been for over a decade now. One day my sister started adding my father's family on Facebook, and I cautiously added a few that weren't closely connected to him as well. One was my cousin, let's call him Andy.

The only thing that's a mess is that there should be a space after the comma and there shouldn't be a space before the colon. The rest is fine grammar. You're wrong, sorry. In fact, "fixing" it the way you assumed makes it incorrect grammatically.

The perspective that she clearly had in saying that she wanted to share although she's aware it's not at the level of the article? Why is it your responsibility to give her the perspective she already has?

I'm not sure you're very bright - when I said "comparisons", I meant you are comparing the opinions of condom vs no-condom to the opinions of bacon vs sprouts. Even if you don't think you are making a comparison there, I can assure you that that is what you are doing. You are putting the two situations up and asking…

Okay, let's start with the the first five words.

I'm sorry you're dealing with all this shit. Jezebel is far from a safe space.

she started the fight

I used to play WoW with a very good online friend who I've known for years and years and, while he has some problematic opinions on feminism, he's a good guy. His friend in the guild we were in, however, was not. While all the other guys in the guild spent hours jumping from roof to roof in Orgrimmar, he would harass…

She seemed very clear to me:

You're doing the exact same as him - stating your preference as a fact ("it's better to be condomless"). If he had stated his preference as a preference and not as a fact, as if it's impossible to have loving sex with someone with a condom on, there would be no one calling him out. You place condomless sex vs.…

Have you checked the rest of the commentariat? Going by that you can be sure that the one speaking only about professional gaming news is the one at fault here. The hivemind hasn't steered me wrong yet!

Have you ever tried telling the police "Someone is sexually harassing me on Facebook"? There was an article recently run where a woman actually pursued calling the police when a man consistently harassed her with rape and death threats over Twitter - the response was to ask her what Twitter was. http://www.psmag.com/na…

"Does the fact she's a game developer really matter to the conversation beyond the topic being discussed (well, the topic behind all the crude remarks)?"

Your problem here is that you're stating your opinions on your own personal relationships as if they're facts for every relationship. You seem to recognize this in your third sentence, but then go right back to doing it in the very same sentence. Condoms are "for" whoever wants to use them, and I love my partner just…

There is no correlation between amount of love and amount of condoms in a relationship.

I bet that's part of why the law was passed, but the law just wasn't thinking ahead to this possibility. It's not like they want to use them, so if they can follow the law and still look like they're not using them they'll be happy.