6 ms·

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

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.

jacalata 13y ago
Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the facebook admin]
- roarroar 13y ago
  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.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Yes. My bias is that when people say something horrifically bigoted, I believe that they mean it. If they didn't, then it's on them to prove that if they need to, I see no need to give the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that our different approaches here reflect a different base level of belief in the existence of real bigotry, and hence the likelihood of such statements reflecting real bigotry rather than being the ironic/trolling type.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - roarroar 13y ago
      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'.
      - jacalata 13y ago
        What? 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. Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. Stop calling it a 'defense mechanism' for people to criticise someone for objectionable behaviour. 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. 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.
        roarroar 13y ago
        >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!
lucisferre 13y ago
No I'm pretty sure the guy just hates women. https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426 https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426
- roarroar 13y ago
  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.
  - lucisferre 13y ago
    Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is pretty clear, I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding it.
    - roarroar 13y ago
      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.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      For reference, ad hominem means "attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument" (Wikipedia). It doesn't seem unfair to use it to paraphrase the description "your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said".
      - roarroar 13y ago
        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.
quinnchr 13y ago
You're misrepresenting what he said. He's clearly trying to troll as hard as possible. So congratulations on agreeing with an intentionally inflammatory and sexist post I guess?
haberman 13y ago
It is not my intention to misread. I'm not sure I understand how your interpretation differs from mine. Your interpretation seems to be saying "if you want a culture with a more inclusive atmosphere, start one yourself." How does this contradict my interpretation? Does this interpretation deny the female-unfriendly atmosphere of the existing culture? Does it show any more initiative/interest on his part to change this?
- roarroar 13y ago
  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.
  - haberman 13y ago
    The distinction between "female unfriendly" and "hostile to women" seems subtle to me, but sure, I'm fine changing that. Maybe "hostile" was a bit too strong. I'm not sure I see the valid point though.
roin 13y ago
I'm not sure what a "male space" is, but it isn't software engineering. It is not a gender specific role, both men and women can do it, men and women excel at it, and men and women should be encouraged to do it. When we think of programming as a "male space" or a "male activity" we are not moving the profession forward. Now what is a "male space"? The military? No, women are on the front lines. Finance? No, a woman is about to become the first Chairman of the Fed. Politics? No, we have 20 female US Senators and a viable Presidential candidate. Professional sports? No, women have their own leagues, and several men's teams have female execs. Software Engineering???

jacalata 13y ago

Really? How do you know that? You appear to be attributing intentions to him that are not actually demonstrated by his words. [edit for clarity: him = the facebook admin]

roarroar 13y ago
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.
- jacalata 13y ago
  Yes. My bias is that when people say something horrifically bigoted, I believe that they mean it. If they didn't, then it's on them to prove that if they need to, I see no need to give the benefit of the doubt. I suspect that our different approaches here reflect a different base level of belief in the existence of real bigotry, and hence the likelihood of such statements reflecting real bigotry rather than being the ironic/trolling type.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - roarroar 13y ago
    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'.
    - jacalata 13y ago
      What? 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. Sorry, but I'm not having a conversation about activism right now - I'm talking about how inappropriate this guys comment was. Stop calling it a 'defense mechanism' for people to criticise someone for objectionable behaviour. 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. 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.
      - roarroar 13y ago
        >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!

lucisferre 13y ago

No I'm pretty sure the guy just hates women. https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426 https://www.facebook.com/aaron.a78/posts/635104079844426

roarroar 13y ago
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.
- lucisferre 13y ago
  Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is pretty clear, I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding it.
  - roarroar 13y ago
    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.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    For reference, ad hominem means "attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument" (Wikipedia). It doesn't seem unfair to use it to paraphrase the description "your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said".
    - roarroar 13y ago
      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.

quinnchr 13y ago

You're misrepresenting what he said. He's clearly trying to troll as hard as possible. So congratulations on agreeing with an intentionally inflammatory and sexist post I guess?

haberman 13y ago

It is not my intention to misread. I'm not sure I understand how your interpretation differs from mine. Your interpretation seems to be saying "if you want a culture with a more inclusive atmosphere, start one yourself." How does this contradict my interpretation? Does this interpretation deny the female-unfriendly atmosphere of the existing culture? Does it show any more initiative/interest on his part to change this?

roarroar 13y ago
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.
- haberman 13y ago
  The distinction between "female unfriendly" and "hostile to women" seems subtle to me, but sure, I'm fine changing that. Maybe "hostile" was a bit too strong. I'm not sure I see the valid point though.

roin 13y ago

I'm not sure what a "male space" is, but it isn't software engineering. It is not a gender specific role, both men and women can do it, men and women excel at it, and men and women should be encouraged to do it. When we think of programming as a "male space" or a "male activity" we are not moving the profession forward. Now what is a "male space"? The military? No, women are on the front lines. Finance? No, a woman is about to become the first Chairman of the Fed. Politics? No, we have 20 female US Senators and a viable Presidential candidate. Professional sports? No, women have their own leagues, and several men's teams have female execs. Software Engineering???