251–254 of 254 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean the neighborhood. It's a great consciousness raising exercise for heterosexual males.
What's it like being in the neighborhood?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Things like this" aren't an issue. Dongle jokes are not a social injustice. Feminists often do a good job of identifying social injustices and when they do, it's worthwhile to treat those injustices seriously. This is not one of those times.
I've heard from many women in the last few days that they are , in fact, made uncomfortable by the overt sexualization that happens in programmer culture. This comment on MetaFilter [ http://www.metafilter.com/126184/Furore-over-sexism-being-ca... ] made its point in a way that was particularly uncomfortable for me: > Oh let's even forget code and the "fork" jargon and whatnot. Let's talk about hardware engineering.…
There was an instance where part of our team was going through a java object used to encapsulate paging behavior for our service. We had a user story that looked like it it could use it, but the paging object was too specifically designed.
I referred to it as a square peg in a round hole. All of a sudden two of my co-workers started giggling. "haha, get it? You always make innuendos like that, honestly hahahaha" I honestly wanted to throttle the life from them for a brief instant.
I am male. I'm fine with sex jokes, but what these women are complaining about is not the terminology, but the professionalism of the people they work with. They only think it's a gender issue because they only see males giggling. Imagine their surprise should they ever end up in an all female team, and it turns out -gasp- women can be unprofessional too!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. I realize you did. And I'm not suggesting you are a bad person or anything. =) > And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers I'm sorry, but hyperbole can be too ridiculous. Tossing in additional conditions to suit your point is silly, and is really not worth my time.
Okay. You came up with the park analogy, saying that if someone got hit by a car in it, that you wouldn't not play in it on that basis. This is a fallacy because that was not the original position. The fallacy is called a straw man, because you put up the "straw man" that is supposedly my argument and then knocked it down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man All I did was attempt to make your analogy match realit…
Linking to Straw man on wikipedia doesn't make it a straw man either.
But congratulations, you just discovered these things called logical fallacies.
> Of course if someone got hit by accident in a park I wouldn't say that other kids shouldn't play in it.
....
You are trolling, you have to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay. You came up with the park analogy, saying that if someone got hit by a car in it, that you wouldn't not play in it on that basis. This is a fallacy because that was not the original position. The fallacy is called a straw man, because you put up the "straw man" that is supposedly my argument and then knocked it down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man All I did was attempt to make your analogy match realit…
Yeah, that's not a straw man. Maybe a hyperbole. But not a straw man. Linking to Straw man on wikipedia doesn't make it a straw man either. But congratulations, you just discovered these things called logical fallacies. > Of course if someone got hit by accident in a park I wouldn't say that other kids shouldn't play in it. .... You are trolling, you have to be.
From above:
> Context. You are supposed to comment on HN. You are not supposed to play in the street. If you played in a park, I'd expect you not to get hit by a car. If someone does get hit by a car while playing in a park, you don't suggest to that person they should avoid playing in the park.
What can I say, I just genuinely don't understand why this isn't a straw man. Part of this has to do with me not being the sharpest knife in the block. Of course, if someone just randomly posted a comment here and received one death threat for doing so, I wouldn't say that they shouldn't post anymore. Isn't that the closest interpretation of your analogy? I'm serious.
The reason I think the analogy doesn't fit is due to a few differences. First, the person in question has a history of writing fairly inflammatory comments, based on my personal reaction, based on the comments containing curse words, sarcasm, insults, and all-caps (more recently), and finally based on the comments receiving downvotes. The second difference is that it's not one death threat, but multiple death threats that were alleged. The third difference is that I didn't say don't post at all, I just said don't post in such an inflammatory way. Given these three fairly significant differences, I concluded that your argument was a straw man. I could be wrong about that, but you'll have to convince me.
I now believe she was referring to Adria and not herself, so I'm really just interested in understanding whether or not the claim of it being a straw man is correct. I mean, I don't want to accuse other people of throwing up straw men if I'm just making a fool of myself. And you're right, although I've known about logic for a while, it's only recently that I started taking it more seriously in the context of discussions. I linked to Wikipedia because I thought you didn't know what a straw man was, I apologize for the insult.
Whether or not I'm trolling, I don't know what to say. It strikes me that a lot of people who troll don't even realize that this is what they're doing, so maybe I am, I don't know. It's not conscious, if so. Apologies in advance?