roarroar

10 ms·

1.
by roarroar 13y ago
It's okay, I don't expect chronically stupid people to recognise their betters.
2.
by roarroar 13y ago
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 tha
3.
by roarroar 13y ago
I don't know what you mean by "slaving morality". Is that a new term for "master morality", or a typo?
4.
by roarroar 13y ago
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
5.
by roarroar 13y ago
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
6.
by roarroar 13y ago
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 d
7.
by roarroar 13y ago
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.
8.
by roarroar 13y ago
>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
9.
by roarroar 13y ago
The first iteration of what? Total degeneration? How can you "improve" a test designed to enforce slave morality on creative people?
10.
by roarroar 13y ago
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 j
11.
by roarroar 13y ago
>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 warrio
12.
by roarroar 13y ago
Perhaps you're right. Let's chalk that up to misunderstanding, shall we?
13.
by 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&quo
14.
by 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 relevan
15.
by roarroar 13y ago
>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 f
16.
by roarroar 13y ago
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.
17.
by 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 desperate
18.
by 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.
19.
by roarroar 13y ago
>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
20.
by roarroar 13y ago
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
21.
by 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
22.
by 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.
23.
by roarroar 13y ago
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.
24.
by 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.
25.
by roarroar 13y ago
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.
26.
by roarroar 13y ago
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 an
27.
by roarroar 13y ago
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 any
28.
by roarroar 13y ago
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 programm
29.
by roarroar 13y ago
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.
30.
by roarroar 13y ago
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

More ›