Hacker News Reader

Comment by rcr | Hacker News Reader

You can't really be serious.

Sure he is. I for one look forward to when we drop these asinine phrases like "manly-man" from casual conversation and start speaking with a better, broader, more meaningful, and richer kind of vocabulary.

I for one look forward to when language can be used in a way that the original author sees fit and without having to pander to every gentle sensitivity or taste.

I don't know how the original author intended it, except that they seem to equate programming ability with masculinity.

If that's what they meant, that's a pretty retrograde attitude.

If that isn't what they meant, maybe it's time to update their vocabulary.

We should be considerate in how we listen as well as how we speak. It does no good to speak insensitively, nor to listen oversensitively. Communication is a two-way street.

When I feel offended, I treat it as an opportunity to learn about a different viewpoint. Sometimes it makes me change my mind. It always gives me a better understanding of people.

The thing is, you've got a woman right here telling you, "this is exclusionary and seems stupid on the face of it." We don't even have to guess at how it's taken by someone who doesn't fit into its built-in description; they're telling us in plain language.

The different viewpoint, I guess, is that the original author has some outdated views on gender competence.

I've seen lots of comments saying "oh but it adds flair to language," and that's a reeeeeally weak defense. There is much better language available; that stuff just sounds stupid at best and retrograde at worst.

I agree that the comment was insensitive. I never said otherwise. I was pointing out that you missed a case: it is entirely possible “that is not what they meant and they do not need to update their vocabulary”.

Of course it's possible they didn't mean to equate programming skill with masculinity. That doesn't mean that they don't need to update their vocabulary--just like those those elderly people I know who still use words like "negros" to refer to black folks.

Sometimes, the world changes, and it's up to us to keep up with the times.

(It's funny, I bet you anything if the original author had said "this negro gentleman at my workplace...", no one would be defending his retrograde use of language.)

You’re not wrong, but we’re arguing about different things, and I’m not sure how I can make myself clear.

I think they didn’t mean to equate programming skill and masculinity. I also think they should be more sensitive in how they speak. I also think it’s dishonest to ignore the fact that one can be true without the other.

Furthermore, “manly man” is a wacky satirical caricature of “real man”, a problematic stereotype. “Negro” is just a problematic stereotype. I think we should find a better comparison, but one doesn’t come to mind.

Actually, I think you've hit on something important: you're saying "manly man" is wacky and humorous, but "negro" is problematic. The only difference here and now is how it's no longer acceptable, at all, to play on race stereotypes, not like it was 50 years ago.

Times change, and we can either keep up, or we can let ourselves becomes relics from an earlier era.

“Negro” was never humorous, as far as I know—it was just the name for a black person, or more accurately “a black”, through the lens of the culture at the time that dehumanised them by identifying them solely with their skin colour. However, I do see your point and I agree that it’s important to change with the times and adapt our language to the new, and hopefully more enlightened, cultural and historical context.

1. A woman saying something is exclusionary does not make it exclusionary on the basis that it's a woman who said it.

2.>original author has some outdated views on gender competence This is libel. This is not at all a conclusion that can be drawn from that user's posts. It's an unfair presumption and you're wrong to go around stating your opinions of others as facts.

On point 1: if a woman says she feels excluded, then it's exclusionary. It's not up to you to decide how she feels or tell her how she should feel.

On point 2: I can't even dignify that "libel" remark with a response.

Snesker is a holocaust denying troll.

The fact that this comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9200905 is still live and wasn't heavily downvoted says something about the current HN audience.

Wow.

Thanks for pointing that out.

What part of my comment do you object to? Challenging the official story of the alleged holocaust DOES cost you your freedom in Germany, and also to a lesser extent in Canada. Do you think it should be a crime to disagree with the government? With Jews? With the 'general consensus'?

Furthermore, my remark doesn't prove in the least that I'm a troll or a holocaust denier. Use your logic. The fact that your comment is still live and wasn't heavily downvoted says something about the current HN audience.

Someone feeling excluded does not make something exclusionary. It's not up to you to decide someone's opinion is objective fact [i]simply because they're a woman, I might add[/i].

Sure he is.

Indeed. I'm glad at least one person got my point.

(A minor nitpick, tho: for the record I happen to have been born with two X chromosomes. Good guess though; especially on HN threads like these.)

Sorry! My bad, thanks for pointing out my assumption.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com