Hacker News Reader

Comment by hristov | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately, the quality has really gone down. Five years ago, I used to read Salon every day. They used to have very interesting well researched and well thought out articles.

Nowadays Salon is progressively obtaining the qualities associated with a bad blog. A lot of half thought out articles, a lot of lazy opinion pieces, a lot of random bitching about how this or that is sexist, practically no attempt to obtain first hand information, just regurgitating popular culture and what appeared on Gawker two hours prior, movie reviews that sheepishly praise the latest idiotic big budget movies. Oh and I read a book review where a reviewer panned a book she had not read.

So yeah, pretty depressing.

View on HN

> a lot of random bitching about how this or that is sexist

Just thought I'd point out the humor in you using a gendered word to describe their tendency to talk about sexism.

Most people don't take the word "bitching" as a sexist term when it's used to refer to an entire group of unspecified complainers. The only ones that would find it "sexist" are looking to be offended.

You can also say someone's "dicking around", and it doesn't have the same gendered connotation as "dick."

I used to think the same way. Then I worked a summer in a place where the n-word was used in place of it: such as "Oh, that's -work," or "I'm not sitting * (in reference to the middle seat)"

I came to realize this was a case of guys growing up in a slightly backwards environment getting acclimated to such talk. They weren't particularly hostile toward African-Americans and in fact worked alongside them from time to time. This was just a manner of speech that they had gotten used to, wrong as it is.

But it made me also realize that just because I became acclimated to "bitch" and "bitching" doesn't mean that it's OK, or that I've fully and totally disassociated the word with it's sexist connotation. Same with calling weak people "pussies." Grew up with that in high school athletics, and now it's a word I would never use.

Yes, in regards to unspecified individuals it has basically supplanted "kvetching".

> Most people don't take the word "bitching" as a sexist term when it's used to refer to an entire group of unspecified complainers.

Just because your intent was not sexist does not mean the word isn't sexist.[0] It's the same reason we frown upon people saying "faggot" even though they might not be directing it at a gay person.

> You can also say someone's "dicking around", and it doesn't have the same gendered connotation as "dick."

Because it doesn't have the same root.

[0]: http://genderbitch.wordpress.com/2010/01/23/intent-its-fucki...

It's an effeminizing term.

Most people are too fucking stupid to concern themselves with such things as gender equality.

I don't find it offensive, but it is sexist. It just shows a lack of forethought on your part and a lack of understanding of gender norms/privilege/etc.

Subtlety assigning words like that is sexist. And dicking around does have gendered connotations, if you don't realize that then see statement one.

the phrase "dick around" is actually from "dicker around" which is a 19th c. term. "Dicker" is to "Engage in petty argument or bargaining" and "Treat something casually or irresponsibly; toy with something".

So when someone is "dick[er]ing around" they are treating serious matters lightly or doing things in an unnecessarily protracted way; which is precisely how we use it.

The word "dick" however, which I would gather, people would envision it meaning "penis" here, simply doesn't work. We don't use "dick" as a verb, yet alone a progressive verb. "To dick" or "to be dicking" a person, although fairly clear in its sexual connotation, is certainly not in use, "dicking (with) a person" however, makes perfect sense, because it's from that ye olden term "dicker" again.

So "dicking around" has nothing to do with the slang term for penis or the disused colloquial meaning of a rookie detective, or it being an everyman; all wrong. Sorry to bust your bubble.

Well, now that we've got your side of it, somebody else chiming in:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2122

and

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=3567

this is at once the best thing i've ever read by esr, and also a perfect explanation of how open source's image will always remain on top of free software's.

the second part didn't occur to me until i read through it again, but esr himself has been putting rms and (much less appropriately) anyone that sees value in his perspective in an anti-theistic kafkatrap, an especially damning and potent snare considering that both esr and rms are atheists. that kind of diabolical abuse has soured me on esr forever, but i admire how brilliantly he explains it.

Are gendered words inherently sexist? E.g., is "He"/"She" sexist now?

No, not all gendered words are sexist, but gendered insults and slurs are.

I'm sorry if that was not clear from my original comment.

Gendered words aren't sexist (he/she), they are descriptive in the same way that black/white are.

Bitching is the (sort of) equivalent of the word niggardly. Niggardly has no etymological roots with nigger, but they sound similar and niggardly means stingy/miserly/has negative connotations. Lets pretend for a second that they are derived from the same root (They're not but I lack a better example off the top of my head).

Saying black would not be the same as saying niggardly.

I must have misheard you. Did you just try to tell me that "niggardly" is a racist word because it sounds like "nigger"?

No. That wasn't my point. I guess I did not communicate it very well.

Deleted comment

Its original root is "female dog", but the verb "to bitch", meaning "to complain", has its roots in the pejorative, gendered insult.

Hopefully this isn't too off-topic.

I feel that way about Slate and many of Gawker's properties.

Buffer bloat isn't the bane of the Internet, insipid Top-10 lists are!

The stuff you describe seems to fall under the heading of "what they are eliminating." Did you read the article?

Yes I did. I also read the salon.com homepage. Most of it is political editorials. There is also a harrowing story about how a writer could not find some new hot clothing collection in Target (the writer uses language associated with violence and massacres to describe what happened to her favorite clothes).

Honestly, I do not mind political editorials, and I usually agree with the political opinions of Salon writers, but it is annoying when that is all there is. Occasionally I want to learn something new when I read the paper. I want the occasional deeply researched article. These used to appear in Salon, but not anymore.

And also, if you do political editorials you have to make sure you say something interesting. I can form my own political opinions, you know. Editorial writing is only interesting if it is especially incisive, moving and/or funny. And it is very hard to do that when you churn those editorials by the dozen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com