roarroar

It's okay, I don't expect chronically stupid people to recognise their betters.

Feminism is a slave morality by definition. I didn't invent the term. You're welcome to reject advances in Western Philosophy if you like. The value that comes out of engaging me is talking to someone who is interested in more than mere gossip. I mean, look at your comment: no more than questioning my credentials, in response to a comment of mine suggesting that maybe people put forward some _actual content_. Amazing

I don't know what you mean by "slaving morality". Is that a new term for "master morality", or a typo?

My language is not more "wildly provocative" than your use of the the phrase "wildly provocative". It's only "wildly provocative" to you because you didn't bother to understand it. The whole point of the Bechdel test is to promote a slave morality (in this case feminism). Insisting that nobody embellish their language a little is unworkable, as you illustrated by embellishing your own language.

That you think the terms "slave morality" and "total degeneration" are "extreme rhetoric" illustrates that you didn't understand the post. The point of reading is not to find any old interpretation, but to figure out what the poster meant. It's because of these highly superficial readings that the GP is allowed to get away with inserting the assumption that these sort of measures represent improvement, in spite of the fact that at the limit of slave morality is total degeneration.

In other words, you ignored the content of my comment and went looking for _dirt_ you could use against me. Bravo, you complete imbecile. And I am anti-egalitarian - feminism is just the current vogue in the tech scene, which is currently degenerating both technically and socially. And your behavior of gossiping about my account is a prime example.

Maybe the downvoters can make an argument. I doubt it, since that is the reason people abuse the downvote button - to shut off an argument they are incapable of understanding.

>Broad generalizations and extreme sexism.

Your comment is up there with the "worst garbage" on HN. An inconvenient opinion that you have no answer to (see next paragraph), answered with a laughable accusation of "extreme sexism". Get a life, loser.

>You might as well have said civil rights leaders should have sucked it up and built something themselves.

You might as well have brought the slaves of Sparta into the discussion. The conditions of women trying to produce their own films aren't even in the same _sport_ as the broad issues facing blacks during the civil rights movement. This is one mark of the egalitarian: to covertly exploit those weaker than him in order to press forward his own interests.

>But out of place - this is for serious discussion.

Yes, like your moronic attack on me. Grow a brain.

The first iteration of what? Total degeneration? How can you "improve" a test designed to enforce slave morality on creative people?

Maybe if feminists (part of the parasitic political class) spent less time being resentful of what others have built and built something themselves they'd have less reason to be resentful in the first place. Now we're living not just with the reactive feminist losers, but the reactive-reactive super-loser MRA types.

>The point of the post was about hatred and rejection of women in software engineering, and this comment was one example of it being a real thing, frequently denied all over HN.

Nope. It was a valid comment directed at a little PC warrior. Possibly from an unsavory character with malignant motives - as you keep repeating - but that isn't of interest. Further, my reply - from which your whole conversation with me spawns, and therefore constitutes the topic of this subthread (the one involving you and me) - was commenting on the reaction of people to the post itself which was a valid observation. Your contention that it is offensive and comes from someone you don't like is of no interest to me. The content of the post was not hateful toward women, even if the author is (itself dubious on a troll-filled Internet). Perhaps if you'd bothered reading what I say instead of firing off scattershot self-righteousness you'd have gotten somewhere in this thread.

>And when a bunch of HNers came in and said 'he didn't mean that, he was just trolling the stupid PC SJ types, I'm sure he wants women to be in software engineering ...

Please limit yourself to what I said in the parents, since that is what you are replying to. It's enough work to get you to read my own posts for comprehension without taking on the additional burden of defending other people in the thread who you _imagine_ share common ground with me.

>I'm sorry if I over generalised your habits from your behaviour. If you don't normally give the benefit of the doubt to people displaying bigoted behaviour, why did you do so in this case?

I don't agree that the post displayed bigoted behavior. The only reason to think the comment comes from a hatred of women is from information that you dug up. I'm not interested in digging up bullshit this guy might have said elsewhere, therefore there was no reason for me to think that's where it came from. I don't care if he's a _child molester_. He may or may not be any number of things.

The fact that you apologise for over-generalising shows that you missed the point, which is not that you affronted me by over-generalising, but that you destroyed the discussion and wasted my time by going on about my personality and the personality of the person who made the original post. And you're still doing it!

Perhaps you're right. Let's chalk that up to misunderstanding, shall we?

>I'm not ignoring what he said. I am responding specifically to it. You are telling people to ignore the objectionable sections of his comment to talk about the bit you want to.

Obviously, you are not ignoring "what he said". That's a given, since you're talking about his post. But you're not addressing the point (that was the sense used, and I'm shocked you lack the common sense to understand this). Rather, you're engaging in gossip about whether he hates women. You even went as far as digging up another comment he made at another time to gossip about his attitude. You are the "Thought Police" this guy is talking about.

>Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was.

And so the backpedaling begins. Now you're concerned about how "inappropriate" it was. Note the misdirection, where suddenly you dial down the heavyweight accusations of "misogyny" and Internet detective work to look more reasonable at a tactically opportune moment. It's all about how "appropriate" the comment was. Unfortunately for you he is the administrator of the group in question and he (and Facebook and any other administrators) get to decide what is "appropriate" there. What you are really doing (ignoring your little tactical retreat) is trying to tie the essential point of the post to a hatred of women. Which note is not the same thing as whether the poster himself hates women.

>If my manager stands up on the conference table peeing while presenting the annual sales figures, it is not a 'defense mechanism' for me to respond by objecting to his pee instead of talking about the sales figures.

Bad analogy. The forum on which the post was made isn't yours to police, and his actions aren't equivalent to pissing on the table, which is a health hazard and a far more egregious social violation than saying some mean things on the Internet. Further, you have employed the same tactics against me by bringing my tendencies and background into question.

>I am curious, if my theory was wrong, why you tend to believe that people are joking about being bigoted when it is so likely that they are not.

A more interesting question is how you know how I "tend" from a sample of one. Just think how this power could be used for the good of mankind!

Exactly. The guy hating women or not is not _irrelevant_, but it's not relevant in the way GP is trying to use it. That's why he tries to play the "ad hominem" card so he can throw up some moronic straw man about relevancy.

>I'm not attempting to "psychologize" the guy.

Yes, you speculated on his mental state quite extensively. Quoting you: "He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by."

>He made a flat-out misogynistic comment.

Sorry, he did nothing of the sort. He made the astute point that women tend to co-opt spaces established by men using activism. Do you deny this?

>Apparently asking people to act nice is now "PC activism".

Nope. Again, it's not just "asking people to be nice", it's a concerted, long-term effort to insert PC memes under the guide of being a nice person.

>But it only takes a single comment of someone calling someone else a "nigger" in an attempt to demean and exclude them before you can call someone a racist.

Nope. People say all sorts of things in anger, and this kind of thinking is exactly the kind of PC stupidity that is becoming a concern.

>Talking about vaginas and male spaces and banning someone who just made a request to be nicer and listed a few examples of the kind of behavior they were talking about.

What's your point here, exactly? That his ban was too harsh? Got anything to say about PC activism (you know, the thing that we were talking about)?

>So, what's an appropriate reaction to this post?

Oh, piss off you moist wanker. Did you stop to think that maybe it's not your job to tell other people how to communicate with others?

Yes, and I'm sure where you come from "micro-aggressions" is a real word too.

>And calling programming a "male space" is inherently exclusionary.

No, it's a statement of fact. The US Marines is a male space. Oops, am I a bad little misogynist now?

>Asking that people be nicer, and maybe consider the effect that gems named "rape_me" and "retarded" might not really reflect well on a community, with a defensive knee-jerk reaction about "politically correct thought-police safe spaces" is not a "valid point".

Yes, it is. If it's invalid, then by all means invalidate it for me.

>No one is coming into the Ruby community, or the programming community, and trying to make it "all about their vagina". In fact, they're asking the opposite; that there's less emphasis placed on their vagina, and more on their code.

I don't hang out with Rubyists. I don't care about Ruby. It's a bad language, for a start. In the general programming field there are plenty of people spending lots of time trying to boost the status of women and institute PC memes. Do you deny this?

Again, your whole deal is "what is he like"? This is the sort of dull thinking that leads people to become obsessed with rumors and celebrity gossip. The fact that he might hate women is relevant, just not in the way you desperately want it to be - the way in which you can ignore what he said. I grew up around racists and sexists, so you're utterly wrong in your speculations about my world view. And that's all your responses are - speculations about some psychological defect or another that you can use to ignore what's being said. That is called a 'defense mechanism'.

I didn't bring up the term "ad hominem". Please stop putting words into my mouth. You are very determined to do anything but address anything anyone's actually saying. Your defense mechanisms are showing.

>What he said about women trying to make a progressive movement all about their vagina?

It's an outburst. So what? Maybe it's humor, maybe he has some kind of pathological issue with women. It doesn't matter because there is a valid point being completely ignored so people can moan about how "women unfriendly" the post is.

>What is that even supposed to mean? How is the ruby community a "progressive movement"

Firstly, I don't think the Ruby movement is progressive, mostly because it's a shitty language. Secondly, the point is not whether Ruby is or is not progressive. Even if you accept that it's a retrogressive movement his point stands because it is a general one.

>There was no point here. He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by.

I beg to differ. There is a real trend of PC activism aiming to protect sensitive little flowers of various kinds against offense. Your attempt to psychologise the guy is just a cheap tactic to avoid this point.

>Asking that people act nicer does not make something a "politically correct thought police 'safe space'".

The hidden (and incorrect) assumption here is that this is unconnected to PC activism.

>And claiming that asking that people act nicer is "co-opting of male spaces" is a pretty pathetic attempt to play the victim card while simultaneously trying to exclude and marginalize women who have contributed tons to the tech industry.

"Pathetic", "margenalize", "afraid", "exclude", etc. And you say this is unconnected to PC activism? His post didn't marginalize anyone. It was making a fairly specific point that your defense mechanisms are preventing you from seeing.

Sorry, misogyny means hating women. Perversion of language won't help you. Also, I don't care if the guy is a misogynist or not. There are plenty of hateful people in the world. I hate lots of people (women are nice though). What I do care about is the fact that his _post_ has had a label thrown on it to neutralise it when it contains a valid point. You've imbibed too much Kool-Aid, my friend.

Well, since you are now no longer talking about "hostility" or even absolute inclusion (but rather the much less definite "more inclusive"), then I assume you retract your assertion that the post condones "hostility" toward women. Yes/no?

The poster may well be hostile toward women. But his post here contains a valid point about activism in the computing field.

It turns out he might be a bit of a jerk after all. Nonetheless that is not the post the GGP was responding to. And your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said in the current thread is reactive behavior.

I guess I was wrong to give him the benefit of the doubt after all. Nonetheless his post from the OP makes a perfectly valid point.

My interpretation is far closer to his words than the GP, and I am giving the speaker the benefit of the doubt. So please be consistent and reply to the GP pointing out his mistake. Oops, you just revealed your bias.

It is extremely dishonest of you to accuse this person of _hating women_ based upon his dislike of particular kinds of activism within the programming field.

You are misrepresenting what he said. Programming is primarily a male activity. That is fact. He is pointing to the attempts to co-opt the programming landscape "out-of-band" by activism - as opposed to simply taking control of and starting new projects. Your post is a perfect illustration of this sort of activism; you have put words right into the guy's mouth because you don't want to be surrounded by men.

It's not the "source" of a video that's in question here. And having HTML at the bottom of everything by no means guarantees "source". Just because HTML is often used to convey source doesn't mean that anything conveyed with HTML is source. Another misconception perpetrated by web types.

Maybe now people will understand that the "open web" is just another power grab by another group in the "dirt war" of computing. The scam is to give the peasants lots of shiny-looking stuff while foisting a crap programming model, Byzantine standards and now DRM. And because the peasants don't have a clue what computers are capable of they gush at every little pseudoinnovation while the W3C plays catch up with the past. The rest of computing suffers from this problem but the web is the absolute worst of the lot. Elegance and rigor is last on their list of priorities, after convenience to the implementor. And yet, elegance is of the utmost importance to users in the long-run. So the reality is that they place implementors _before_ users, because their aim is to win the dirt war and be written into history in a favorable light.

Another way to sniff out dirt warmongers is to look for reactive behavior. And the W3C is the most reactive organization, constantly pushing one thing only to do a U-turn later (e.g. asm.js) when those choices threaten their own self interests. The whole idea of the browser as any more than one application on the web - for viewing static documents - is nothing more than a quick power grab by people eager to get as many installs as possible. "Look, we can shoe horn an application into this thing and increase market share". And so the idea of a networked, general purpose computing platform (on which document browsers are but one application) has its air sucked out by the browser with some programming stuff bolted onto the side. The more elegant arrangement is a HIGHER idea, one that is general and powerful, but currently benefits nobody in the dirt war.

Reason rests on fictions, too. For example objects/things don't exist. But without believing in them it's impossible to function. Religion also has to be evaluated functionally.

What do the Markdown people think of things like NML: (http://genius.cat-v.org/erik-naggum/xml-sgml-nml-lisp)? Isn't this a much nicer way of working with HTML (especially with macros)? The syntax described in the link is compact and elegant, whereas markdown is smallish but basically ad hoc.