АLL F-!!1 TOPIC TITLE
-
One weakness of summary is that it tends to favor earlier posts which naturally have more likes, replies, views, read time, incoming/outgoing links, etc. I've talked with @eviltrout about weighting the bottom of the topic more to compensate.
You'd probably be better off having a human editor decide what is a good summary, rather than some algorithm. The algorithm will be as wrong as the person, but more difficult to change.
@many folks said:
a Progressive
What, an insurance company franchise?
-
I have been trying to keep my argument here as simple and logically consistent as possible. What I believe I have been saying is that while market economies are the most efficient systems currently known, there can still arise inefficiencies in the market that may need to be handled some other way.
And that the absence of women in technology is evidence of one such inefficiency, and as such, it is in everyone's best interests to find the source of that inefficiency, and cut it out.
-
How is it proof of such inefficiency?
The real proof of the inefficiency of the system has nothing to do with women being or not being in the industry - but by how much shit the industry turns out in the first place.
You want to talk about inefficiency, you go look at almost every article ever published on thedailywtf.com and then come back to be about how women not being in IT is an example of inefficiency - because by my reckoning it's not even a rounding error in the amount of inefficiency in the system.
-
Are you sexist against men? You assume because women aren't prominent it can't be efficient?
-
And after 300 posts we get back to the title laughs
The two things are almost entirely unrelated. Yes, there aren't many women in IT. No, I'm not convinced that's an inefficiency because I believe it's just not an industry that necessarily appeals to women in the first place, just as nursing doesn't necessarily to men. There are plenty of roles out there that attract one gender vs the other and that's, shockingly, NOT SEXIST. The industry can be but it doesn't change that certain roles simply will not attract one or other gender just because of what the job involves.
There is a shocking amount of inefficiency due to utter incompetence. And you can have just as many incompetent women as incompetent men. Or people of indeterminate gender. Whatever. You can have as many people as you like of any given criteria and they can still be utterly incompetent at it as TDWTF's entire existence attests.
Putting more women into that mix won't suddenly fix it. Neither will it make it any worse. There's the real IT inefficiency: the wrong people are already in the industry and aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
-
There's the real IT inefficiency: the wrong people are already in the industry and are
n't going anywhere anytime soonall in management.FTFY
-
Oh no, no, no, no. There's plenty of inefficiency/incompetence in the grunts too. It isn't solely management.
-
Damn lack of sarcasm tags
-
Hahahahaah
While it's true that there is a metric buttload in management, never let us forget that management is only 87.83% (adjusting for standard deviation) responsible for WTFery.
-
Former Libertarian, though I believe @boomzilla is current,
I've never been a capital L Libertarian. I have a lot of small l libertarian views.
-
And you do need new blood to survive long term.
Interestingly, the switch to DC got us a lot of new blood.
it wouldn't kill you guys to create topics that make sense
Bah. Now you're just trying to be a barrier to free flowing discussion.
-
It got you some new blood, and some old blood under new names.
-
What I believe I have been saying is that while market economies are the most efficient systems currently known, there can still arise inefficiencies in the market that may need to be handled some other way.And that the absence of women in technology is evidence of one such inefficiency, and as such, it is in everyone's best interests to find the source of that inefficiency, and cut it out.
This is much clearer that what you said before, to the point that it seems somewhat inconsistent, and as a general rule, something I can agree with. However, you're begging the question about what's in our best interests in this specific case.
-
And we bloodied some old names. Blood for everyone!
-
Except for the neck-romantics, of course. They would get them a bit hot under the collar and they might start sparkling.
-
Well, the way to tackle a large problem is to break it into smaller problems. And then occasionally, someone might create a tool that turns a previously unsolvable problem into a solvable one. For instance, they might install a forum software that gives your community the ability to moderate itself.
Then the presence of misogyny on your forum becomes something that you yourself are responsible for. So whenever someone posts something blatantly misogynistic and you don't flag it, you are supporting misogyny. When they call someone an ‘it’, that is dehumanizing, and you should flag it. When I post a topic like ‘Misandry is Real’...
-
Dehumanising, eh?
Here's the thing. I have no idea whether you're a man or a woman. Or transgender to any point in between the spectrum. Or even one of the group self-identifying as being both simultaneously.
Calling you a man would be inappropriate. So would calling you a woman. So would calling you part of 'them'. This is where political correctness gets us, where we're stifled in what we can say out of fear of offending someone, whether there would be offence or not.
So, what am I supposed to say when making comment about something you've said to someone else? His? Hers? Theirs? Its? Shers? Xirs?
I get that you're bent all out of shape by this community, but frankly, beating us over the head with your perceptions of our inadequacies isn't going to miraculously change our opinions.
You see, what you call 'blatantly misogynistic' may not be. It is to you but that doesn't necessarily make it so, just as to the Flat Earther people, the world is flat; they believe it but it doesn't make it so.
In this case, I'm presuming that you're trying to call us out on the fact that we should have reported this entire topic from the off. Well, here's the thing: misandry is real. It's no less real than misogyny, except most of the time men don't tend to cry out or cry foul about it in the way women do. Does not mean it does not happen. Just as male rape is a thing. Just because it's not reported or discussed does not mean it does not happen.
So, now you're saying that if I don't hold to your definition of misogyny, I'm misogynistic, even if to another point of view, I'm being completely logical and rational. Awesome.
-
In this case, I'm presuming that you're trying to call us out on the fact that we should have reported this entire topic from the off.
That would have been foolish. A perfectly good opportunity for a free-market flamewar would have been wasted. It's not like those opportunities grow on trees around here, y'know.
-
Interestingly, the switch to DC got us a lot of new blood.
This might well be because DC's password reset emails weren't working. I was here five years ago too, but I lost my password, and now I'm back. There might be more people like this.
Then again, with the lack of pagination, the only usable way to resume reading a topic is Discourse's tracking, for which you need an account, and once you have one you might as well participate, so that probably helped too.
(Hey, I think I might've found something good about Discourse's unorthodox UI: it basically forces you to register even if you just want to lurk, so it ends up making participants out of at least some lurkers. Now I wonder if they did that on purpose.)
-
Probably since there's a thread somewhere about how bad DC is for lurkers. It's certainly what got me to finally join up rather than lurk.
-
whenever someone posts something blatantly misogynistic and you don't flag it, you are supporting misogyny
I see this argument a lot in the SJW sphere, and it's utterly fallacious. The "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem" attitude. Nothing is ever that binary. Not condemning does not equal condoning. The truly frightening thing about fourth wave feminism is the extent to which they advocate thought policing.
Filed under: CONDONE, CONDEMN, ATTITUDE_NOT_FOUND
-
So, what am I supposed to say when making comment about something you've said to someone else? His? Hers? Theirs? Its? Shers? Xirs?
It saddens me how much we seem to have forgotten that "They" is a valid gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun. Seeing "He or She" everywhere is just cumbersome.
-
In other venues where I have had related discussions, I was railed at for using 'they' in reference to a transgender male-to-female (where I 'should' have used male because 'just because they have female bits does not mean they can have children', and therefore should have used 'heshe'). From a group of people that call themselves open minded.
'They' is an interesting one because it's just as dehumanising as blindly using 'he' or 'she' by the arguments given above.
-
So, now you're saying that if I don't hold to your definition of misogyny, I'm misogynistic, even if to another point of view, I'm being completely logical and rational. Awesome.
One of the things that I have been trying to do, is to keep my arguments very simple and consistent, perhaps almost tautologically so. So when I say that by when you don't remove something that you are responsible for removing, that thing's presence is on you, that is all that I am saying. The specific post that I had in mind when I wrote that was a post that members of your own community had highlighted as misogynistic.
Your pronoun shenanigans, on the other hand, actually are an example of an inconsistency in your world-view.
My proof of this relies on a fact that is not contained within this forum, however I believe that it is fairly unobjectionable, so I'm gonna put it in a box and let you decide:
@The Truth According to Buddy said:In every culture
whose vernacular is the english languagewith English as the vernacular (what I do, when I encounter a pronoun situation I'm not sure about, is rewrite that part of the sentence to not contain any pronouns) referring to a person as 'it' is considered offensive.
So the inconsistency that I am talking about is this: you claim that you do not discriminate against people based on their identity, yet you have intentionally insulted me as a result of your perception of my identity.I do understand that it is difficult to relate to people with different social or cultural expectations than you, but the fact is that these differences are a part of the human condition, and that placing the onus for bridging the gap onto another group is not consistent with egalitarianism.
-
A post is not a thought. A post is an object that exists in our shared reality. You are not responsible for the creation of posts that you did not create. You are responsible for the continued existence of a post exactly as much as you are able to influence its continued existence.
-
Wait, how is it an inconsistency in my world view when I don't care about the gender of another person except when writing it down, having to do so in a fashion not to offend anyone specifically because of people like you that have pushed that situation in the first place?
I am no more responsible for a post that I did not write being on this forum than you are. Just because I may flag a post as inappropriate does not mean it will disappear, nor does my not-flagging a post mean it will continue to exist. Your position is that if something is objectionable, I should report it and that failing to do so somehow legitimises it... no it doesn't.
If I should report every thing I found objectionable, I would report most of your posts for accusing me of thoughtcrime. I don't because while I may find it objectionable, the reality is that you are perfectly entitled to think the way you do. I am not legitimising it by failing to report your posts. Nor am I condoning it nor implicitly or explicitly supporting it. I merely recognise your right to hold the views you do. I would ask if you would do the same but since your views are clearly 'what you say goes, or it's wrong', I feel I must protest.
Interesting that you now view yourself as outside the community, as though that somehow legitimises you and damns the rest of us, despite the fact that I don't find anything especially objectionable in it thus far. But perhaps the problem is that I'm not an intolerant bigot that goes around decrying everyone else of thoughtcrime for not conforming to their ideas of how society should work.
As I said, I don't care whether you're a man or a woman. In fact, I did not intentionally offend you, and if any offence was taken, I'm afraid that's rather your problem than mine. I highlighted the fact that I did not have sufficient information on which to decide which pronoun to use when referencing your posts in a third person context. If I had assumed that you were male from your username, clearly this could have been wrong. If I had inferred that you were female from the attitude you have been using, that too could have been wrong. Simply put, the only thing I could have done was to be impersonal, nonspecific and genderless, which is also wrong. (I have not watched the video, I will do so tomorrow once I have been to bed; it is rather late here)
I was merely trying to be inclusive specifically to avoid offending in true political correctness fashion, but offence was taken nonetheless, though it seems to me the only person with a problem with this community is you, and I am afraid that is your problem, not ours. There's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance going on here, too.
Perhaps we should demand everyone state their preferred pronoun to avoid such matters in future to avoid offending them accidentally.
Or perhaps how about not trying to beat people over the head with your perceptions of their inadequacies - which naturally will lead to people rising up against you, no matter how well meaning your intent in the first place.
-
In other venues where I have had related discussions, I was railed at for using 'they' in reference to a transgender male-to-female (where I 'should' have used male because 'just because they have female bits does not mean they can have children', and therefore should have used 'heshe'). From a group of people that call themselves open minded.
When people get into that sort of tangle, it's time to roll out the “s/he/it” expression and use just a little offence to indicate that they're being silly and should find something more useful to get cross about.
Filed under: the internet might not know or care if you're a dog, but they do know if you're plain old-fashioned stupid (even if not actually caring about it…)
-
Modern western society is based on a principle of "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". The trend in Social Justice is "I don't agree with what you say, so you have to stop saying it because it offends me"
Offense is not something that is given. It is something that is taken. It's right there in the language: "To take offense". When something offends you, it's because you've chosen to let it do so. It's not the fault of the person who did it, but rather, the fault of you for electing to react in such a way. It's natural that it happens though, and when it does happen, the participants have a few choices:
- The offender can choose to cease the offensive activity
- The offendee can remove themselves from exposure to the offensive activity
- Both parties can reach a compromise to minimise the issue
Social Justice takes the stance that (1) is the only correct responce, and that people must be "taught" this. It's thought policing and coercion, and hypocritical when placed alongside the supposed ends of the movement.
As for pronouns: Anyone who seeks to bend the language to suit their own desires not only fails to understand how language works in the first place, but is attempting to place themselves in a position of control over our very speech. Again, this is entirely at odds with any concept of 'Justice' other than classic retribution.
-
I didn't say "government bad," the way your strawman does
No, what you said was:
most everyone else tends to [...] but tend[s] to suffer from people being successful in government
and staunchly refused to explain what you mean by it.
The reason I've been asking all this time is that I don't want to be tilting at straw men. So what did you mean?
-
-
If this forum were to change to fit your idea of being amenable to newcomers, it would lose what makes it what it is.
I'd even go as far as saying that if this forum were to change, it would remove the reason to be a newcomer. I joined recently because I wanted to be a part of this community specifically, with all its quirks.
-
but I get the feeling you don't really like not knowing who you're talking to so here we go:
In your case, we're completely fine with that.
'They' is an interesting one because it's just as dehumanising as blindly using 'he' or 'she' by the arguments given above.
It is? I've never thought of it as dehumanizing. And it's certainly easier to use "they" as a "I don't give a shit about your gender" pronoun, than risk insulting someone because they disagree with your view on their gender.
Actually, being insulted by a pronoun is pretty much a sign that you care too much about wrong things.
-
Also, it wouldn't kill you guys to create topics that make sense, either -- it'd also be a lot easier for newcomers.
You're asking for a fundamental change to the community here Jeff. Yet again.
Perhaps you could stop telling us what you think we've been doing wrong all these years and demand we change because it's not fitting nicely into Discourse, and your little worldview of how all forums should behave, and perhaps accept the fact that all online communities have their own little foibles (to which you might consider adapting to?)
Which is why most of them suggest you lurk a little before jumping in with both feet. In your mouth.
-
What's wrong with the summary button under the first post?
The problem is that this is a forum full of programmers who know how difficult it would be to write an algorithm which could reliably summarise the topic. As a result of that, we don't trust the algorithm. I tend to scan through the topic, and use a cursory glance to sort the wheat from the chaff.
A non-programmer who doesn't appreciate the complexity of what you're trying to do may well be more inclined to trust it and to use the summary feature.
Filed under: Also, TDWTF members choose to "like" the randomest things...
-
except when writing it down, having to do so in a fashion not to offend anyone specifically because of people like you that have pushed that situation in the first place?
You know what? Let's offend them all, for fuck's sake. Those who want to be all offended and hurt all over their butts and play the victim card forever will often find a reason to be victims and offended and butthurt anyway. Note that it's not because of their gender identity but because they are bloody fools. I don't care about feelings bloody fools may have.
-
Not a demand, merely a suggestion that when you move to a different house, you don't necessarily have to also take along all the bats from the attic and the gimp from the basement.
Filed under: spring cleaning
-
it's not because of their gender identity but because they are bloody fools
Filed under: Quoted for Great Truth
-
But the gimp in the attic and the bats in the basement are OK.
-
the gimp from the basement
Hey, @blakeyrat was a popular member of this community!
Filed under: Vying for @mikeTheLiar's title.
-
Are they a barrier to reading? ;)
-
Are they a barrier to reading? ;)
Bats in the basement? Not unless they're sparkly vampire bats.
-
Not a demand, merely a suggestion that when you move to a different house, you don't necessarily have to also take along all the bats from the attic and the gimp from the basement.
Or the old family photos or dead granny's heirlooms it appears....
-
Preface
This post is a pretty big multiquote. I have no energy left for spell- or concept-checking. Take it for what you will.complaining about not being treated like a man in some respects, while at the same time declining to be treated like a man in all other respects. Which is it?
Both.
There are many situations and many treatments. There is no need for an exclusive choice, there is no "Which is it?". "Being treated like a man" refers, among other things, to being listened to as a respected person, and it refers to not receiving death or rape threats from voicing an opinion. Now I'm sure you personally don't send rape threats to women you don't like, but you also don't shout at the guy who does do that, as far as I know. Start doing that.
no matter how TDWTF might change, that change will do little to bring more women on board unless/until there is a larger pool of women in IT from which to attract participants.
Reasonable.based on my experience of women in IT, I don't think this community would change if more women started showing up
There aren't very many so far, so more data needed before we make such claims.having stuff is better than not having stuff (duh).
That's not duh. That's materialism. Taken as a fundamental principle, anyone who puts away things (having less) is less successful. And that's bunk.I personally prefer not to have as much as possible, since it creates terrible Stuff Management overhead (stuff can be physical, intellectual or financial).
How is it proof of such inefficiency?
The inefficiency idea is that there are incompetent men working in fields, while (potentially) competent women not working in those fields, due to women being perceived as second-class citizens. If we could swap those, then efficiency would rise.The difficulty of course, is selecting those competent women, because if it were easy, then the incompetent men would vanish also.
the wrong people are already in the industry and aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
as you agree.
I believe it's just not an industry that necessarily appeals to women in the first place, just as nursing doesn't necessarily to men.
All of that is culture. It's taught. Pink dolls are for girls. Cars are for boys. Bullshit is for humans.they might install a forum software that gives your community the ability to moderate itself.
Where is that software?
-> audience laughter
-> much veal is hadSo, what am I supposed to say when making comment about something you've said to someone else?
Forms of "they" are commonly accepted.
There. Your problem has been solved.I get that you're bent all out of shape by this community, but frankly, beating us over the head with your perceptions of our inadequacies isn't going to miraculously change our opinions.
'course not, but you gotta start somewhere.You see, what you call 'blatantly misogynistic' may not be. It is to you but that doesn't necessarily make it so,
And vice versa. Something you perceive as an innojcent jab or a valid criticism may in fact be hurtful and dismissive, but you don't notice because you've grown up in the environment where that is normal. all you have to do is say "hm, maybe the things I say aren't right" instead of being defensive, and after that you can always arrive at the conclusion that you're perfectly fine.It's easy to dismiss Buddy right now, because you have no relationthip with them at all. There is no mutual respect deeper than what humans should normally grant eachother, ans so they arguably don't have any authority over what you can and can't think or say or do.
But maybe you have a bunch of female friends you can talk to.
It's no less real than misogyny,
It's not even close to being as prevalent as misogyny.except most of the time men don't tend to cry out or cry foul about it in the way women do.
Yeah, those whiny womenz. Always whining. Us STRONG EMOTIONALLY STABLE MEN don't complain.Fuck that shit.
Just as male rape is a thing. Just because it's not reported or discussed
Why is that?
It's the shame in the face of other men of having been overpowered to such a terrible degree.Not condemning does not equal condoning.
Not condemning means allowing. It's not about explicitly approving, it's about something that will happen unless it's opposed. We call that tacit support. It's why @wft feels entirely comfortable spewing his anti-woman bullshit. Speak up against maggots like him.'They' is an interesting one because it's just as dehumanising as blindly using 'he' or 'she' by the arguments given above.
Not really. Use they. In case of transgender or anthing like that: you ask.Your position is that if something is objectionable, I should report it and that failing to do so somehow legitimises it... no it doesn't.
Yes it does. Welcome to the world.I am not legitimising it by failing to report your posts.
That exactly what you're doing. And you're explicitly legitimizing it by saying "you are perfectly entitled to think the way you do."
So. Uh. Welcome to the world, again.Simply put, the only thing I could have done was to be impersonal, nonspecific and genderless, which is also wrong.
No, you twat. They is fine.It's thought policing and coercion,
"I would like you to use "she" to refer to me"
"THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!!"Don't overreact.
Are they a barrier to reading?
Gimp suits are a barrier to speaking, not reading.
-
Preface This post is a pretty big multiquote.
I've liked your post out of guilt for not reading it.
-
>trithne said:
It's thought policing and coercion,
"I would like you to use "she" to refer to me""THOUGHT POLICE!!!!!!"
Don't overreact.
Don't strawman then. The pronoun argument is a separate one to what you've quoted. I am talking about the greater argument of the movement, where 'misogynistic attitudes' must be purged from the collective consciousness and only then can women be free from oppression. You calling @wft a 'maggot' for his attitudes. His attitudes may be reprehensible, but he has the free goddamn will to hold them and I will, as someone who respects freedom of thought, defend his right to. You, Buddy, and anyone else rocking the Social Justice train need to learn that attempting to dictate the thoughts and attitudes of others is far more tyrannical than the oppression you claim to be fighting
-
Now I'm sure you personally don't send rape threats to women you don't like, but you also don't shout at the guy who does do that, as far as I know.
In actual fact you don't know one way or the other.
Start doing that.
Here, you're assuming I don't already.
Aside: I must have missed the rape threats in this thread or some other one. Please point me to it, so I can tell off those responsible.
-
all you have to do is say "hm, maybe the things I say aren't right" instead of being defensive, and after that you can always arrive at the conclusion that you're perfectly fine.
This cuts both ways though, doesn't it? That's the crux of the issue here: You're coming at this from a self-perceived position of moral superiority. You tell someone they need to think "Maybe the things that I do aren't right" without stopping to apply that same introspection to yourself "Maybe my inability to be tolerant of others' sociocultural differences is no fucking different to their inability to be tolerant of mine".
We're not even asking for different things here - the end goal is a more equal society. The difference is that the one I hope for doesn't plan to achieve that by stamping out 'undesirable' attitudes.
-
-
Aside: I must have missed the rape threats in this thread or some other one.
It's not about this thread.In actual fact you don't know one way or the other.
@GOG said:Please point me to it, so I can tell off those responsible.
Well at least now I know a little more.without stopping to apply that same introspection to yourself
I am doing it, actually. And I've been chewed out on multiple occasions for saying a stupid thing. Not on this board (well, obviously), but in other places. And it was always because I said something supposedly funny and innocent, and failed to recognize the life and position of someone else.The fact that I'm hammering on it like that could be ex-smoker syndrome, though. You know. Ex-smokers are the worst anti-smokers.
-
We're not even asking for different things here - the end goal is a more equal society.
Glad to hear it!The difference is that the one I hope for doesn't plan to achieve that by stamping out 'undesirable' attitudes.
"Stamping out" i.e. openly criticizing attitudes that oppose a more equal society seems in line with the desire for a more equal society.
From what I can tell, the actual stamping out is more done by those who feel attacked by the open criticism of their ways: NO YOU MUST NOT SAY WE ARE BAD WE ARE NOT BAD SHUT UP STOP TALKING.
You're coming at this from a self-perceived position of moral superiority.
When someone tells me this, I think on it.
