I suggest you change the demo.
1. Boys see girl 2. Boys fight over girl
Creator could have chosen literally anything else to represent their product but instead went with an animation of boy emojis fighting over a girl emoji.
1. Boys see girl 2. Boys fight over girl
Creator could have chosen literally anything else to represent their product but instead went with an animation of boy emojis fighting over a girl emoji.
Overall the idea is creative, but also not at all what I hoped. Was hoping for diagrams of actors in the systems sense.
I've never, EVER, in 18 years of being in this business, seen a software product demo of an emoji doing THAT before...
Changing the default demo is a reasonable and actionable suggestion.
And if it's not, the onus is on you to ask why.
That's how groupthink works.
> And if it's not, the onus is on you to ask why.
I have asked why. Note the lack of answers, but the surfeit of pearl-clutching replies.
The demo is not egregious by itself, it's the choice of the demo for this circumstance. Why boy-hits-boy-with-rock-for-girl for an animation DSL?
I see "it's obvious" "cringey" and allcaps being used. Being able to vocalize specific problems and having the courage to clearly state it is a life skill.
Please be specific about the problem and why. Bonus points for replacement suggestions.
The boys-fight-for-girl is a very typical movie trope and this is a scene-based product. Maybe that's why they defaulted to it.
And being a trope is not enough of a defense; tropes can drift away from culture over time.
The demo is not egregious by itself, it's the choice of the demo for this circumstance. Why boy-hits-boy-with-rock-for-girl for an animation DSL?
If the choice is meaningless, why defend it?
And if the choice is meaningful, why this?
> And if the choice is meaningful, why this?
Well said. So many of these painful "discussions" could be ended quickly if people would just honestly answer these :)
Do you seriously think this is a story still worth telling? Is that how you view women? Is that how you view men?
But since you asked specifically about someone spelling it out letter by letter for you:
Women are not a prized possession, but individual humans, like men. You do not "take" them, you don't "fight over" them, you don't "own" or "win" or "loose" or "deserve" them - because they are not objects, but humans. They can also decide to pick neither of the two men if they so desire, and pursue a career in neuroscience.
Men who disagree over something do not, in fact, need to hit each other immediately, or throw rocks to their heads. They have the ability to talk and listen to reason. Because they aren't chimpanzees, but sapiens, a species with extraordinary capable brains.
Regurgitating this very trope, which works just as well with aforementioned chimpanzees instead of humans, proliferates the stereotypical depictions of women and men. Science is very clear about the fact that repeated exposure to an idea increases acceptance of this idea, so telling the tale of boys-fight-for-girl time and time again ensures its firmly planted in people's heads, influencing their view on other people negatively.
Women are exposed to severe violence all around the world, every day. If you don't believe this, I don't feel obligated to convince you with any particular slice from the mountain of freely available scientific material on the topic. Alternatively, for a fun little experiment, consider asking five female and five male relatives or friends each about the three worst things they can imagine happening to them on the way home at night. No spoilers, but the answers are going to be very different.
I'm going to take "you" here to mean the author instead of myself b/c I already found the example distasteful for reasons similar to yours.
> But since you asked specifically about someone spelling it out letter by letter for you:
You took time to do this and I appreciate it. I like to think you're teaching others how to respond clearer. I hope we can see this level of organized thought and direct challenge at the top level instead of reactionary slang and huffing.
It's not core to the tech/product, people think it's off-putting, why not change it?
Hacker News loves to talk about being amazing business-people and "understanding the customer" but somehow that gets dropped for things like this.
Even ignoring the unnecessary language, sexist content, gender stereotyping, and so on and so forth, just the warrantless violent act in that story is enough for people to object to. And enough people have objected that there isn’t any good reason for the author to keep that animation included. Particularly when it doesn’t actually demonstrate this library in a way that literally any of demo couldn’t. So why even defend it?
I don't think I have that, really. But I have the high ground over people who objectify groups of other people, and if that is really central to your culture, then I am not accepting of it. Make of that what you will; you do not seem particularly open to criticism either.
Thinking and doing is not the same.
>people who objectify groups of other people
What is the objectification here exactly?
>you do not seem particularly open to criticism either.
Right, and how would you know that? Just make sure you make your opponent look bad and you win the argument - this worked in school, not sure why try to do it here.
You can't know whether you have the moral high ground. That's always an assumption, and I am not making any assumptions about being morally superior to other nations or cultures. No more, no less.
> What is the objectification here exactly?
I have answered that extensively in another comment [0]; in short the scene depicted treats women as a prize for the stronger man. This seems pretty obvious to most people commenting on this thread.
> Right, and how would you know that?
Because you started off accusing me of thinking I have the moral high ground over other cultures and nations, and dictating what is right and what is wrong - without knowing anything about me either, on the basis of me pointing out how this animation is sexist.
You didn't pause to consider whether that might have some merit, but instead immediately went to a personal attack. It sure seemed to trigger a reaction in you, and it wasn't reflection.
Sirs, please turn the apparatus upon itself. Question yourself as a part of a larger system. What is your function among members of your own species? How can you falsify your hypotheses on this subject? Please don’t be so incurious.