7 ms·

Please elaborate on why my second point is "outrageous nonsense". You just aren't convincing me with shaming language.

by factorial 14y ago

fusiongyro 14y ago
If you want to establish that women are being treated with kid gloves in our industry, the burden of proof is on you. If you want me to dig up the four or five high-profile examples of sexism in technology from the last couple months I can certainly supply that, but your ugly claims are the ones which require proof, not mine.
- factorial 14y ago
  Are you a man or a woman? Further, do you work in tech or don't you? There is certainly something fishy about you and your style of argumentation. Your rhetoric also reminds me of women. Sure, cold hard facts are "ugly". What's next, calling me "mean"? BTW, isn't it funny how fashions change? Two years ago you read comments like, "(...) another researcher concludes that only "boys" are stupid enough to go into a field that's globally-fungible, where entry-level salaries are declining, and it's common to think that staying up all night for a company-paid pizza is a good deal.'"": http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/2043254/Not-Enough-Women-In-Computing-Or-Too-Many-Men http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/2043254/Not-Enough-W... Since IT is hot again, and the economy otherwise depressed, suddenly the feminists fire up their PR machine and want to get some of their sisters into cushy (so they think) office jobs. But why aren't there any initiatives to get more women into, say, plumbing, firefighting, or the military? I smell hypocrisy.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    > Your rhetoric also reminds me of women. Wow. > Sure, cold hard facts are "ugly". They can be. But you don't have any. Using the word "fact" doesn't by itself make your argument factual. > What's next, calling me "mean"? Sure, but it's just the capstone on "sexist" and "ill-informed."

7 ms·

Please elaborate on why my second point is "outrageous nonsense". You just aren't convincing me with shaming language.

by factorial 14y ago

Please elaborate on why my second point is "outrageous nonsense". You just aren't convincing me with shaming language.

fusiongyro 14y ago
If you want to establish that women are being treated with kid gloves in our industry, the burden of proof is on you. If you want me to dig up the four or five high-profile examples of sexism in technology from the last couple months I can certainly supply that, but your ugly claims are the ones which require proof, not mine.
- factorial 14y ago
  Are you a man or a woman? Further, do you work in tech or don't you? There is certainly something fishy about you and your style of argumentation. Your rhetoric also reminds me of women. Sure, cold hard facts are "ugly". What's next, calling me "mean"? BTW, isn't it funny how fashions change? Two years ago you read comments like, "(...) another researcher concludes that only "boys" are stupid enough to go into a field that's globally-fungible, where entry-level salaries are declining, and it's common to think that staying up all night for a company-paid pizza is a good deal.'"": http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/2043254/Not-Enough-Women-In-Computing-Or-Too-Many-Men http://tech.slashdot.org/story/09/12/17/2043254/Not-Enough-W... Since IT is hot again, and the economy otherwise depressed, suddenly the feminists fire up their PR machine and want to get some of their sisters into cushy (so they think) office jobs. But why aren't there any initiatives to get more women into, say, plumbing, firefighting, or the military? I smell hypocrisy.
  - fusiongyro 14y ago
    > Your rhetoric also reminds me of women. Wow. > Sure, cold hard facts are "ugly". They can be. But you don't have any. Using the word "fact" doesn't by itself make your argument factual. > What's next, calling me "mean"? Sure, but it's just the capstone on "sexist" and "ill-informed."