zlacker

From my perspective the story is: some people on HN which profess to value knowledge, scholarship and professionalism and "reducing" things for the sake of simplicity, express strong opinions on a matter of which they know little, their behavior mirrors archetypical behavior studied in the literature, and then rage when they're "reduced" based on scholarship they don't know. This is too long, so I'd summarize it as "HN commenters stuck in a bubble of ignorance rage on a topic they know nothing about."

>>pron+(OP)
It's hard having a conversation with you as you don't seem to respond to what the points anyone is making when you write a follow up comment. What is the literature you're repeatedly referring to? HN and the scientist seem to be in agreement on the work not being that of an individual, why is that ignorant?

>>nailer+xY
I don't think anyone has ever claimed that it was the work of only one individual, and I'm referring to the literature (you can Google for it) showing that women face, among other kinds of discriminatory treatment, increased scrutiny. In other words, the reaction of some on HN (thankfully a minority, but a predictable and loud one) is a textbook case of sexism. Not recognizing that is not a matter of opinion but a simple ignorance of the scholarship on the subject.