Don't overassociate here. You can enjoy the work, solving problems, figuring out patterns, without showing any substantial regressive symptoms. You could arbitrarily declare me autistic to fit your model, based on the fact that I hate noise, and I'm moderately introverted, but to me, those are just personality traits, and I doubt a clinical diagnosis would agree.
The insult just distracts from the point. Functionally it's similar to an ad hominemem in that sense, even if it's ancillary to the point I'm actually making. I felt calling him a douchebag was worthwhile because he was making one of those "I called your argument a fallacy therefor I win" internet debate styles that's just the worst, especially when they're wrong about it being a fallacy. I hate those guys, and feel no remorse about insulting them.
The thing he called an "ad hominem" before that? That was just crazy. To compare the fundamental similarity of two notions in order to highlight how something stated before might be relevant isn't attacking the person. It's comparing one argument to another, similar one. It's a fundamentally sound method of debate(barring other fallacious reasoning being included in the comparison).
Sure, but no one sees a problem there. And we aren't going to rally behind your movement to fix the problem with a mere 92% representation in the industry.
No one ever forced you to use any of those words. No one stuffed them in your mouth. (going on probabilities here)You've never even seen the in popular culture outside satire of their use. Calm down.
Don't get you open source business loans. Let's be honest: banks and investors decide what local businesses are going to happen, except in the case of people who are already rich.
It's almost like there's a history of abuse in that arena, that distinguishes it.
Guess what, you can't legally sell real estate to only women either. This "see it's just like this time the empowered majority abused the dis-empowered minority, except all these dozens of ways it's not" arguments are always really lame.
Do you just kind of automatically say that phrase anytime someone disagrees with you?
Anyways: I was drawing a parallel to the notion of "patriarchy," because you were so damn close to describing it. I can't help but feel that you're making an argument that's fundamentally equal to "don't talk about the status quo of gender relations, just because it's not fair." To which I say: tough.
*You can call this one if you want. I'm not too concerned for my credibility here. I promise I won't even start a petty debate about the difference between an insult and an ad hominem.
Counterpoint: as a boy learning to code in my spare time, screen savers were an early fascination of mine. Clearly decorative, but also useful. Christmas lights are a very public very interesting environment to work with. You're right that it's not the most sex-atypical(meant in the sociological sense, not some biotruths way) thing in the universe, but it's probably the most public display of work a kid could possibly work with.
I'm not saying you're wrong, that some "clever" idiot came up with it, just that it might be over-investing the notion of decoration as a feminine pursuit. In fact, my sense of cultural norms is that exterior Christmas lights are something done by the stereotypical bumbling husbands in fiction.
Now that's a real possibility. It's pretty clear they're running arbitrary code on some machine on the whitehouse network. It can't be that hard to escape a sandbox when you've got arbitrary code with necessary access to a hardware layer.
I think this would make a good theme for next years' innocent looking C contest.
Holy fuck, sexist marketing? That sounds like feminist talk to me.
You might discover the elements of culture bear elements of sexism! Like some kind of established order that exists outside the strict boundaries of law. And that people might form counter-cultures to resist those forces as they stand now. Like code.org!
Oh my!
You've just re-articulated one of the primary ideas of modern feminism(that certain people on slashdot are extraordinarily quick to dismiss as non-organized, therefor irrelevant).
I'd like you to explicitly describe the sexism you are imaging exists in madewithcode, because you guys almost never do any research before opening your defensive little mouths.
Like... just look at code.org, and discover that, holy shit, it's not actually discriminatory in whatever way you're imagining. The worst that some of these orgs do is say they're trying to encourage underrepresented groups. It very quickly becomes clear that all you're interested in is not having that happen.
People got bored of wearing the damn things everywhere. Also: those stories tended to be overblown, and were actively hunted for because we weren't all tired of it already.
Because, in open source land, every single difference of opinion ends up being a fork. Even differences over tiny back end things the user never notices.
Slashdot Mirror
The thing about a spectrum: there's no hard line.
Don't overassociate here. You can enjoy the work, solving problems, figuring out patterns, without showing any substantial regressive symptoms. You could arbitrarily declare me autistic to fit your model, based on the fact that I hate noise, and I'm moderately introverted, but to me, those are just personality traits, and I doubt a clinical diagnosis would agree.
Oh no, naive idealists kill people all the time.
They just kill them for conflicting with their ideals, rather than for being political nuisances.
Oh, it appears sexist. Is that the problem? Let me just confirm that before we move on.
(To answer your unstated query code.org is the primary recepient of madewithcode's funds, as they are a meta-charity).
It really didn't though. Nearly all the naive idealists in the soviet government got axed by Stalin.
Counterpoint: chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen.
That's not say video games are good for you or anything, but the whole "different from the unwashed masses" stereotype is just a victorian holdover.
That's a "straw man". And I wasn't dismissing it. I was embracing it as something crucial.
To quote myself
The worst that some of these orgs do is say they're trying to encourage underrepresented groups.
Okay, since we're derailing a bit:
The insult just distracts from the point. Functionally it's similar to an ad hominemem in that sense, even if it's ancillary to the point I'm actually making. I felt calling him a douchebag was worthwhile because he was making one of those "I called your argument a fallacy therefor I win" internet debate styles that's just the worst, especially when they're wrong about it being a fallacy. I hate those guys, and feel no remorse about insulting them.
The thing he called an "ad hominem" before that? That was just crazy. To compare the fundamental similarity of two notions in order to highlight how something stated before might be relevant isn't attacking the person. It's comparing one argument to another, similar one. It's a fundamentally sound method of debate(barring other fallacious reasoning being included in the comparison).
Okay, so, you think overrepresenation is a bad thing, now? If that's the metric we're going by, I've got some bad news for you.
Sure, but no one sees a problem there. And we aren't going to rally behind your movement to fix the problem with a mere 92% representation in the industry.
No one ever forced you to use any of those words. No one stuffed them in your mouth. (going on probabilities here)You've never even seen the in popular culture outside satire of their use. Calm down.
YES.
Don't get you open source business loans. Let's be honest: banks and investors decide what local businesses are going to happen, except in the case of people who are already rich.
It's almost like there's a history of abuse in that arena, that distinguishes it.
Guess what, you can't legally sell real estate to only women either. This "see it's just like this time the empowered majority abused the dis-empowered minority, except all these dozens of ways it's not" arguments are always really lame.
That's not an "ad hominem", douchebag*.
Do you just kind of automatically say that phrase anytime someone disagrees with you?
Anyways: I was drawing a parallel to the notion of "patriarchy," because you were so damn close to describing it. I can't help but feel that you're making an argument that's fundamentally equal to "don't talk about the status quo of gender relations, just because it's not fair." To which I say: tough.
*You can call this one if you want. I'm not too concerned for my credibility here. I promise I won't even start a petty debate about the difference between an insult and an ad hominem.
Counterpoint: as a boy learning to code in my spare time, screen savers were an early fascination of mine. Clearly decorative, but also useful. Christmas lights are a very public very interesting environment to work with. You're right that it's not the most sex-atypical(meant in the sociological sense, not some biotruths way) thing in the universe, but it's probably the most public display of work a kid could possibly work with.
I'm not saying you're wrong, that some "clever" idiot came up with it, just that it might be over-investing the notion of decoration as a feminine pursuit. In fact, my sense of cultural norms is that exterior Christmas lights are something done by the stereotypical bumbling husbands in fiction.
Now that's a real possibility. It's pretty clear they're running arbitrary code on some machine on the whitehouse network. It can't be that hard to escape a sandbox when you've got arbitrary code with necessary access to a hardware layer.
I think this would make a good theme for next years' innocent looking C contest.
Holy fuck, sexist marketing? That sounds like feminist talk to me.
You might discover the elements of culture bear elements of sexism! Like some kind of established order that exists outside the strict boundaries of law. And that people might form counter-cultures to resist those forces as they stand now. Like code.org!
Oh my!
You've just re-articulated one of the primary ideas of modern feminism(that certain people on slashdot are extraordinarily quick to dismiss as non-organized, therefor irrelevant).
Have you seen a counter-example?
I'm pretty sure the systemd forks are well underway right now, for example.
I'd like you to explicitly describe the sexism you are imaging exists in madewithcode, because you guys almost never do any research before opening your defensive little mouths.
Like... just look at code.org, and discover that, holy shit, it's not actually discriminatory in whatever way you're imagining. The worst that some of these orgs do is say they're trying to encourage underrepresented groups. It very quickly becomes clear that all you're interested in is not having that happen.
These groups don't actually discriminate against boys. They let them in, and are just labeled and marketed to encourage underrepresented groups.
I don't know why you perceived my post to be antagonistic. It was intended as observational.
People got bored of wearing the damn things everywhere. Also: those stories tended to be overblown, and were actively hunted for because we weren't all tired of it already.
You're now getting your hardware in cutting edge technology people are already tired of.
Because, in open source land, every single difference of opinion ends up being a fork. Even differences over tiny back end things the user never notices.