Your entire premise is assuming that "human decency" is a universal, objective standard, which it is not.
"Do onto others..." is pretty close to universal across all cultures and religions. We are social animals, we are born with certain innate "morals" that are subsequently moulded by parents and society. Xenophobia is one of those naturally evolved instincts that is no longer beneficial to the species..
Did you read my post, or just the first sentence? I pretty much covered that stuff, save xenophobia.
racists on both sides of the fence, i.e. your KKK member and Al Sharpton types
Because people like Al Sharpton have committed centuries of murder, terrorism, torture and destruction of basic human and civil rights? Oh, wait, they're not alike at all.
Sure they're alike, in the way I mentioned: they're both examples of racist people.
Just because he has not directly, with his own hand, killed or tortured anyone, does not mean Al Sharpton is not a racist asshole. FWIW, most Klansmen never killed or tortured anyone either.
We're offended by the shoddy unprofessionalism at the conferences, and at the ongoing decline of the computing industry.
Got a mouse in your pocket or something? Or are you claiming to be the voice of the entire industry?
We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now, and part of this may be due to the rabid sexism that is not only tolerated but applauded.
At least 2 citations needed: one for "more lady programmers 30 yrs ago than today," and another for "rabid sexism that is... applauded."
No, we absolutely do NOT need an adults-only part of a programming or computing conference.
I didn't say you and Mighty Mouse did; read what I wrote. Specifically, the bit at the end where I point out that doing so wouldn't fix anything.
If you've got a porn app, then present it at a porn conference.
Why not at an app conference? Porn stars aren't really the target audience for a porn app, you know - pitching it to them would be an utter waste of time.
Besides, it doesn't have to be a porn app, it could be something completely benign yet offensive to someone... like maybe some sort of "avoid fat people" app or something... you get my point.
It means that while we're all entitled to our own opinions, there's a fairly long-standing, accepted definition of sexism, and I for one do not think that such an app falls under said definition.
Per Websters, sexism is:
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
Breaking it down - does the app discriminate based on sex? From what I can tell, anyone can download and use it, regardless of gender, so I would say that no, it does not meet the conditions of that first definition.
Websters gives another definition for the term:
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
This would seem to not apply to the app (as it specifically references aspects of human emotions), but might apply to the presentation, which I have not seen, and thus cannot accurately comment on. One might be able to stretch the "fosters stereotypes" part to include software, but again that doesn't seem to be the case... aside from the fact that anyone with such an app on their phone will likely be stereotyped as a pervert, gender notwithstanding.
How in the hell do you equate extending life is a bad idea with contracting life is a good idea? Aren't/. readers supposed to have a higher-than-average level of intelligence?
Higher-than-your-average-news-site-commentator, but that isn't really saying much.
OTOH, perhaps it's an indication that even the more learned among our species still struggle with issues like cognitive dissonance, false equivalence, and faulty reasoning.
Option 3 is that maybe he knows what he's saying, and is just being a dick.
No, I'm just questioning the reality of woo-woo as a problem-solving technique. It doesn't seem very scientific. You can laugh at diabetes or foreclosure, but that doesn't make them go away.
Well, obviously the issue is that you're aiming at a different set of goalposts than everyone else in this discussion - we're talking about effects and artifacts of human emotion, whereas you seem to be insisting on tangibles. I figured the clarification was in the rest of my original post (where I exclusively focused on racism), and assumed that most people with decent reading comprehension skills would be able to infer the scope of my meaning without me having to bust out the crayons and draw them a picture.
And no, it's not scientific at all, but it works for me and that's all I really care about in this regard.
fresh water supplies at crisis levels and extreme weather happening more often... worst idea evar!
Yea, this - just what we don't need, more and more old and infirm people doubling the amount of resources they use up while providing no net benefit to the rest of society.
I mean, if we're talking about a system that will stop the aging process at, say, 30, and leave you with that body for the next 60-100 years, OK then; but we all know that's not going to be the case.
Yeah, see, that's the thing; if all the hardships you ever had amount to a joke, then yes, by all means laugh them off.
Bit of a childish assumption, isn't it? Is it not equally possible that I'm one of those apparently rare souls who is better at not letting shit bother them than others?
I laugh at hardships, because to me that's a better option than wallowing in self-pity. YMMV, but that's no reason to be a dick about it.
I always believed the best way to end a negative aspect of something was to find a way to laugh about it.
Wait, what? How's that working out for you in real life?
Pretty well, actually - ever since I learned to laugh at insecure douchebags who feel a compulsion to transfer their self-loathing onto others, instead of getting all offended, I've been a much happier person in general.
Plus, nothing pisses a troll off like knowing that no matter how hard he tries, he'll never get under your skin.
Except maybe his mom forgetting to buy more Doritos.
Your entire premise is assuming that "human decency" is a universal, objective standard, which it is not. You say, "people make mistakes," but I would question how offensive speech could be mistaken; If I say something, I mean it; if you take offense to it, you mean to; where's the mistake? There's nothing inherently wrong with stating an opinion, regardless how offensive said opinion might be to certain un-named groups of other people. The car crash analogy is nonsense.
I have offended plenty of people in my day. One time in my youth I made a very inappropriate racist joke when I didn't realize someone of that race was present (not that it would have been okay otherwise, but that is what made me realize the error of my ways). I was also a huge jackass once when I ended a relationship badly.
OK, so you did or said some things that you felt stupid for doing - that by no means translates into there being some sort of universal standard for human interaction, save the Golden Rule: don't do anything to another person you wouldn't want done to yourself, but even that's not considered a universal constant.
I doubt anyone can say they have never acted inappropriately, but there is a difference between making mistakes and not acknowledging that you even broke the "rules" of social decency.
Again with the statement of non-existent qualities. Do "Muslim" societies have the same rules as "Christian" ones? Hell, keeping it in our own borders - do the states of Texas and New York have identical 'rules of social decency?' Again, aside from the obvious.
The existence of human conflict does not prove people are incapable of understand human decency. It merely proves that humans aren't perfect.
'Humans aren't perfect' is a cop-out, non answer. Rather, the existence of human conflict proves that your universal standard of 'human decency' does not exist. Nobody wants to be murdered, but being offended by someone else's opinion is totally on the individual, not society in general.
At one point, I was nine years old, and seeing such a thing would not harm someone that age in all likelihood.
All I'm saying is, someone should ask this of the 9-year-old girl in question:
"Which do you think is more stupid: these guys presenting the boobie app, or the reaction of all these people claiming to speak on your behalf?"
Considering that this kid has the wisdom to code and sell her own software before reaching puberty, my guess is her response would probably surprise a lot of the reactionaries.
Actually it make women uncomfortable and help them, as a group, view the industry as hostile to them.
I see, so you think all women are exactly the same - unthinking, fragile little creatures that need smart, strong men to shelter them?
You fucking sexist.
Maybe you should talk to some women sometime.
Don't have to - I married one, and we have a kick-ass relationship. Of course, I don't treat her like a terrified cow who has to be protected from herself, which probably has a lot to do with it.
Wait, we're supposed to ask 9-year-olds what's appropriate for them rather than make decisions based on our own decades of experience, which, for the record, includes having been a 9-year-old once?
So, what, at the age of 9 a person is smart and mature enough to present an app in a professional setting, but not smart and mature enough to know when they've been offended and why?
I've been doing this whole parenting thing all wrong!
Well, I try to avoid judging how other people parent, but if you're giving your kids such mixed signals...
Honestly, I think you give the youngsters too little credit. Now GTFO my lawn.
Just don't laugh at something targeting a group you're not a part of. You don't have that right - because the second you do, you're oppressing them and disdaining all that they've fought for.
Yup, that's the real issue - a general lack of tolerance.
Kinda like how some rappers think it's OK to call each other "My nigga," but the first time someone without enough melanin in their epidermis uses the exact same euphemism in the exact same context, they jump all over the poor bastard.
I hear all too often, 'well, you're a white guy, so you wouldn't know what it's like.' Which, if I were like so many others, would piss me off - I'm not just a white guy; hell, my paternal grandparents were both full-blooded Blackfoot! But, I don't expect people to know that (although I always thought the penny-colored summertime skin tone was a dead giveaway), and I still laugh my ass off at Indian (feather, not dot) jokes, so long as they're actually funny.
TL;DR - non-rich Caucasian guys are one of the most persecuted groups on the planet today; we can't get away with anything.
Talking to friends and family over the internet > talking to strangers in person.
Yea, I know my phone magically stops working anytime I step on public transit. *rolls eyes*
Also, who takes public transit with the expectation of socializing with the random strangers they'll meet on the bus? Only the desperately lonely, and the annoying morons who think themselves far more interesting than they really are.
That such an attitude is so common, it's hard to imagine that humans ever interacted with each other successfully enough to create and maintain civilized society.
Well, it's apparent to me that there's an inherent instinct to not only have a problem with the way other people live their lives, but to also insist that one has some perceived right to tell others how to live. Take, for example, the uncountable number of 'special interest' organizations that 'push for acceptance' - essentially, these groups demand that people (other than themselves) be forced to change lifestyles, because it 'offends' aforementioned groups in some (probably stupid) way.
The issue with such an attitude, especially in the United States, is the idea that all persons have a right to self-expression - demanding that said right be curtailed because some overly-sensitive crybaby gets all butthurt about differing opinions is the epitome of hypocrisy.
It's sexist because it reduces the chances of any woman being there in future, 9 years old or not.
Really? So some idiot pitching an idiotic app about looking at tits causes some sort of wibbly-wobbly time-space anomaly, one that physically prevents members of the female gender from appearing at that location again?
In general people don't go to places where they are made to feel uncomfortable.
Being in the presence of immature morons makes most normal people uncomfortable.
What are you trying to say? That women tend to be overly sensitive to feelings of discomfort, and thus would disproportionately be affected? Fucking sexist.
On a slightly related note, I'd like to thank my wife for teaching me how to turn shit around on people like that.
Human social interaction is a very messy and subjective area, but the human brain is more than capable of understanding it.
If that were unequivocally true, there would be no human conflict.
Where I come from, we understand that a woman who has a child out of wedlock may be a victim of her circumstances, and thus do not punish her for it, but as that cultural value (among others) is not universally understood or appreciated, your hypothesis is negated.
The worst part, to me, is that the 9-year-old herself probably wasn't offended in the least, but nobody thought to ask her opinion - they were too busy being offended on her behalf.
Slashdot Mirror
Your entire premise is assuming that "human decency" is a universal, objective standard, which it is not.
"Do onto others..." is pretty close to universal across all cultures and religions. We are social animals, we are born with certain innate "morals" that are subsequently moulded by parents and society. Xenophobia is one of those naturally evolved instincts that is no longer beneficial to the species..
Did you read my post, or just the first sentence? I pretty much covered that stuff, save xenophobia.
racists on both sides of the fence, i.e. your KKK member and Al Sharpton types
Because people like Al Sharpton have committed centuries of murder, terrorism, torture and destruction of basic human and civil rights? Oh, wait, they're not alike at all.
Sure they're alike, in the way I mentioned: they're both examples of racist people.
Just because he has not directly, with his own hand, killed or tortured anyone, does not mean Al Sharpton is not a racist asshole. FWIW, most Klansmen never killed or tortured anyone either.
We're offended by the shoddy unprofessionalism at the conferences, and at the ongoing decline of the computing industry.
Got a mouse in your pocket or something? Or are you claiming to be the voice of the entire industry?
We had many more females in programming in the early 80s than we do now, and part of this may be due to the rabid sexism that is not only tolerated but applauded.
At least 2 citations needed: one for "more lady programmers 30 yrs ago than today," and another for "rabid sexism that is... applauded."
No, we absolutely do NOT need an adults-only part of a programming or computing conference.
I didn't say you and Mighty Mouse did; read what I wrote. Specifically, the bit at the end where I point out that doing so wouldn't fix anything.
If you've got a porn app, then present it at a porn conference.
Why not at an app conference? Porn stars aren't really the target audience for a porn app, you know - pitching it to them would be an utter waste of time.
Besides, it doesn't have to be a porn app, it could be something completely benign yet offensive to someone... like maybe some sort of "avoid fat people" app or something... you get my point.
What the hell does that mean?
It means that while we're all entitled to our own opinions, there's a fairly long-standing, accepted definition of sexism, and I for one do not think that such an app falls under said definition.
Per Websters, sexism is:
Breaking it down - does the app discriminate based on sex? From what I can tell, anyone can download and use it, regardless of gender, so I would say that no, it does not meet the conditions of that first definition.
Websters gives another definition for the term:
This would seem to not apply to the app (as it specifically references aspects of human emotions), but might apply to the presentation, which I have not seen, and thus cannot accurately comment on. One might be able to stretch the "fosters stereotypes" part to include software, but again that doesn't seem to be the case... aside from the fact that anyone with such an app on their phone will likely be stereotyped as a pervert, gender notwithstanding.
How in the hell do you equate extending life is a bad idea with contracting life is a good idea? Aren't /. readers supposed to have a higher-than-average level of intelligence?
Higher-than-your-average-news-site-commentator, but that isn't really saying much.
OTOH, perhaps it's an indication that even the more learned among our species still struggle with issues like cognitive dissonance, false equivalence, and faulty reasoning.
Option 3 is that maybe he knows what he's saying, and is just being a dick.
No, I'm just questioning the reality of woo-woo as a problem-solving technique. It doesn't seem very scientific. You can laugh at diabetes or foreclosure, but that doesn't make them go away.
Well, obviously the issue is that you're aiming at a different set of goalposts than everyone else in this discussion - we're talking about effects and artifacts of human emotion, whereas you seem to be insisting on tangibles. I figured the clarification was in the rest of my original post (where I exclusively focused on racism), and assumed that most people with decent reading comprehension skills would be able to infer the scope of my meaning without me having to bust out the crayons and draw them a picture.
And no, it's not scientific at all, but it works for me and that's all I really care about in this regard.
fresh water supplies at crisis levels and extreme weather happening more often... worst idea evar!
Yea, this - just what we don't need, more and more old and infirm people doubling the amount of resources they use up while providing no net benefit to the rest of society.
I mean, if we're talking about a system that will stop the aging process at, say, 30, and leave you with that body for the next 60-100 years, OK then; but we all know that's not going to be the case.
Not until we figger out regeneration.
Yeah, see, that's the thing; if all the hardships you ever had amount to a joke, then yes, by all means laugh them off.
Bit of a childish assumption, isn't it? Is it not equally possible that I'm one of those apparently rare souls who is better at not letting shit bother them than others?
I laugh at hardships, because to me that's a better option than wallowing in self-pity. YMMV, but that's no reason to be a dick about it.
Wait, what? How's that working out for you in real life?
Pretty well, actually - ever since I learned to laugh at insecure douchebags who feel a compulsion to transfer their self-loathing onto others, instead of getting all offended, I've been a much happier person in general.
Plus, nothing pisses a troll off like knowing that no matter how hard he tries, he'll never get under your skin.
Except maybe his mom forgetting to buy more Doritos.
Your entire premise is assuming that "human decency" is a universal, objective standard, which it is not. You say, "people make mistakes," but I would question how offensive speech could be mistaken; If I say something, I mean it; if you take offense to it, you mean to; where's the mistake? There's nothing inherently wrong with stating an opinion, regardless how offensive said opinion might be to certain un-named groups of other people. The car crash analogy is nonsense.
I have offended plenty of people in my day. One time in my youth I made a very inappropriate racist joke when I didn't realize someone of that race was present (not that it would have been okay otherwise, but that is what made me realize the error of my ways). I was also a huge jackass once when I ended a relationship badly.
OK, so you did or said some things that you felt stupid for doing - that by no means translates into there being some sort of universal standard for human interaction, save the Golden Rule: don't do anything to another person you wouldn't want done to yourself, but even that's not considered a universal constant.
I doubt anyone can say they have never acted inappropriately, but there is a difference between making mistakes and not acknowledging that you even broke the "rules" of social decency.
Again with the statement of non-existent qualities. Do "Muslim" societies have the same rules as "Christian" ones? Hell, keeping it in our own borders - do the states of Texas and New York have identical 'rules of social decency?' Again, aside from the obvious.
The existence of human conflict does not prove people are incapable of understand human decency. It merely proves that humans aren't perfect.
'Humans aren't perfect' is a cop-out, non answer. Rather, the existence of human conflict proves that your universal standard of 'human decency' does not exist. Nobody wants to be murdered, but being offended by someone else's opinion is totally on the individual, not society in general.
At one point, I was nine years old, and seeing such a thing would not harm someone that age in all likelihood.
All I'm saying is, someone should ask this of the 9-year-old girl in question:
"Which do you think is more stupid: these guys presenting the boobie app, or the reaction of all these people claiming to speak on your behalf?"
Considering that this kid has the wisdom to code and sell her own software before reaching puberty, my guess is her response would probably surprise a lot of the reactionaries.
Actually it make women uncomfortable and help them, as a group, view the industry as hostile to them.
I see, so you think all women are exactly the same - unthinking, fragile little creatures that need smart, strong men to shelter them?
You fucking sexist.
Maybe you should talk to some women sometime.
Don't have to - I married one, and we have a kick-ass relationship. Of course, I don't treat her like a terrified cow who has to be protected from herself, which probably has a lot to do with it.
Wait, we're supposed to ask 9-year-olds what's appropriate for them rather than make decisions based on our own decades of experience, which, for the record, includes having been a 9-year-old once?
So, what, at the age of 9 a person is smart and mature enough to present an app in a professional setting, but not smart and mature enough to know when they've been offended and why?
I've been doing this whole parenting thing all wrong!
Well, I try to avoid judging how other people parent, but if you're giving your kids such mixed signals...
Honestly, I think you give the youngsters too little credit. Now GTFO my lawn.
The sexist part of it has to do with the objectification of the female body, not the gender of the person doing the staring.
You having a different, personal definition of the term 'sexist' doesn't make a titstaring app sexist according to AC's definition above.
Side-note: since when did 'titstaring' become a word, and why the hell do I keep using it?!?!
blah blah blah.
FWIW, you seem to be the only one who didn't understand what I meant by "race" without having it explained to you.
Just don't laugh at something targeting a group you're not a part of. You don't have that right - because the second you do, you're oppressing them and disdaining all that they've fought for.
Yup, that's the real issue - a general lack of tolerance.
Kinda like how some rappers think it's OK to call each other "My nigga," but the first time someone without enough melanin in their epidermis uses the exact same euphemism in the exact same context, they jump all over the poor bastard.
I hear all too often, 'well, you're a white guy, so you wouldn't know what it's like.' Which, if I were like so many others, would piss me off - I'm not just a white guy; hell, my paternal grandparents were both full-blooded Blackfoot! But, I don't expect people to know that (although I always thought the penny-colored summertime skin tone was a dead giveaway), and I still laugh my ass off at Indian (feather, not dot) jokes, so long as they're actually funny.
TL;DR - non-rich Caucasian guys are one of the most persecuted groups on the planet today; we can't get away with anything.
What if he works at Groom Lake, you insensitive [REDACTED]?
Talking to friends and family over the internet > talking to strangers in person.
Yea, I know my phone magically stops working anytime I step on public transit. *rolls eyes*
Also, who takes public transit with the expectation of socializing with the random strangers they'll meet on the bus? Only the desperately lonely, and the annoying morons who think themselves far more interesting than they really are.
That such an attitude is so common, it's hard to imagine that humans ever interacted with each other successfully enough to create and maintain civilized society.
FFS, man, get over yourself.
Well, it's apparent to me that there's an inherent instinct to not only have a problem with the way other people live their lives, but to also insist that one has some perceived right to tell others how to live. Take, for example, the uncountable number of 'special interest' organizations that 'push for acceptance' - essentially, these groups demand that people (other than themselves) be forced to change lifestyles, because it 'offends' aforementioned groups in some (probably stupid) way.
The issue with such an attitude, especially in the United States, is the idea that all persons have a right to self-expression - demanding that said right be curtailed because some overly-sensitive crybaby gets all butthurt about differing opinions is the epitome of hypocrisy.
Hope that clarifies the previous statement.
If you paid more then $10 for ordination, you got robbed.
I am also an ordained minister.
If you paid at all, you got stiffed, bro.
I've been ordained since 2006. Even officiated a couple weddings.
Good times.
It's sexist because it reduces the chances of any woman being there in future, 9 years old or not.
Really? So some idiot pitching an idiotic app about looking at tits causes some sort of wibbly-wobbly time-space anomaly, one that physically prevents members of the female gender from appearing at that location again?
In general people don't go to places where they are made to feel uncomfortable.
Being in the presence of immature morons makes most normal people uncomfortable.
What are you trying to say? That women tend to be overly sensitive to feelings of discomfort, and thus would disproportionately be affected? Fucking sexist.
On a slightly related note, I'd like to thank my wife for teaching me how to turn shit around on people like that.
Love ya, baby!
Human social interaction is a very messy and subjective area, but the human brain is more than capable of understanding it.
If that were unequivocally true, there would be no human conflict.
Where I come from, we understand that a woman who has a child out of wedlock may be a victim of her circumstances, and thus do not punish her for it, but as that cultural value (among others) is not universally understood or appreciated, your hypothesis is negated.
The worst part, to me, is that the 9-year-old herself probably wasn't offended in the least, but nobody thought to ask her opinion - they were too busy being offended on her behalf.
She may expect sexism from the unclean world, but should not be subjected to it in a professional environment.
Right - and since it's sexist to presume that a titstaring app would not interest a single female on the planet...