Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

bropages.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 872 posts

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#631

Post by ceol »

mkdir wrote: post #619
jtheory wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Answer: yes, of course it's sometimes appropriate. But if you're having a serious conversation with someone on the subject of privilege, and you're on the privileged side (and they're not), the likelihood of you accurately identifying when they should lighten up is so vanishingly small (I keep finding my blind spots in spite of years of being attentive to this kind of stuff...), and the chance that they might actuall…

You're fighting to create a world in which the intellectual currency is not reason, evidence, or logic; it's self-proclaimed victimhood. If I claim I'm a victim in a way that you're not, it becomes literally impossible for you to prove me wrong. If I go on to claim that we need new policies to protect me from (and/or compensate me for) that victimhood, you can't disagree. You can't do anything other than supplicate.…

> You're fighting to create a world in which the intellectual currency is not reason, evidence, or logic

Ah yes, empathy is the enemy of intellect! Truly an argument made by a well-adjusted person.

> If I claim I'm a victim in a way that you're not, it becomes literally impossible for you to prove me wrong.

That's now what they're saying at all, and the fact you somehow extracted that from their point really shows how irrational you're being.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#632

Post by ceol »

stelonix wrote: post #279
ilyanep wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well now you're making an ad hominem fallacy. Can you please read the actual pages I linked and tell me why you disagree with their arguments or why the arguments they are debunking don't apply to what you wrote?

An ad hominem is an attack on the messenger. The poster merely gave reasons why the credibility of said link shouldn't be taken at face value.

"Credibility"? It's an argument. You either agree with it or you don't.

That was most certainly an ad hominem. It was an attempt to counter a point by attacking the messenger, not the argument. Textbook, really.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#634

Post by ceol »

Stratoscope wrote: post #339
rds2000 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a funny joke, I love the name. Change it. A higher standard? How about an individual having backbone and integrity to stand firm, hold the line and not supplicate? I feel this, "Change it.", as if you are some castrating, sky-god feels eerie. Like you are some judge of the highest moral purity, when in reality, you're the enemy of purity. You are taking an honest, organic creation and molding it for your own abi…

Really? You call another HN commenter "some castrating, sky-god"? You tell them "in reality, you're the enemy of purity." You ask, "Feel castrated?" I don't care what your point is, this isn't the place for those kinds of insults and personal attacks.

rds2000 is literally saying that being a man is pitiful and should be shamed, and then argues elsewhere in this very thread that the real problem with our industry are the feminists.

Me thinks he doesn't read what he types.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#635

Post by torbjorn »

overgard wrote: post #216
blahedo wrote: post #99

Great idea; shame about the name. Here's the problem with using words like "bro" (however jokingly): the problem is not with what you [0] are thinking when you read the word "bro", but with what other people , especially newcomers, are thinking. The locker-room atmosphere that stuff like this creates is a huge barrier to entry for a lot of people, women especially, who infer that on top of all the technically difficu…

Absolutely, lets throw away our sense of humor and wordplay because there are theoretically people that might be offended (maybe, kindof. You know. In theory.). (N.B. the people that seem to be offended so far are offended on other peoples behalf..) Isn't it way more offensive to assume that women are such dainty delicate creatures that like, they won't get the joke?

The hostility towards bros in this thread makes me feel uncomfortable and unwelcome.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#636

Post by ceol »

[deleted] wrote: post #633
ceol wrote: post #630

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprising you scrolled right passed the guy calling someone a "pussy whipped mofo" to tell me that saying he's a jackass is trolling. Says something about your priorities, chrismonsanto.

[deleted]

I'm not trolling. I responded to the person sticking up for others and let them know they aren't alone. You should stop claiming anyone who disagrees with you is a troll, Chris; it really doesn't make you look too good.

Likewise, characterizing me as "hateful" because I pointed out how skewed your priorities are is really quite juvenile. You apparently thought it pertinent to grace me with not one but two replies when the other commenter left something objectively more hateful. That says something about yourself. You should take some time to examine why my comment deserved such protest.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#637

Post by mkdir »

dsuth wrote: post #623
reallyseriously wrote: post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How very odd that despite all of our behaviour being so non-offensive and non-exclusionary, we don't seem to have any women who want to hang around this forum with us..." Correlation -> Causation? Is that seriously why you think there aren't more women on HN? Because it's offensive and exclusionary against women?

Having seen this happen in a number of internet communities, where women have described the reasons they would no longer visit, and having watched these communities change from reasonably well represented by both sexes to almost exclusively male-only: yes. It's almost certainly because the community at HN is offensive and exclusionary towards women. This seems to be something of a hot button issue within the communit…

I don't see a single attack against women in this entire 600+ post thread.

I haven't read the entire thing, however.

Would you mind sharing a link?

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#638

Post by sergiotapia »

babby wrote: post #571
raganwald wrote: post #392

My experience is this: Some time ago, I wrote a post about CoffeeScript. As you may know, CoffeeScript is a whitespace-specific programming language. I am black, and there is a small cultural wiggle-room when it comes to black people making fun of colour-based cultural issues. So I thought I could get away with calling my post "White Power." The response was immediate and scathing. Regardless of whether I was persona…

>I thought I could get away with calling my post "White Power." See, you just gained respect from me. I suppose it's all about the community in the end. If you linked that article on /g/ or /prog/ it probably would have resonated. It's too bad most people are such slaves to political correctness.

Most _north americans_. This is a uniquely north american phenomenon, let's hope this cancer doesn't spread worldwide.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#639

Post by JoergR »

rds2000 wrote: post #501
glesica wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is offensive because it has high potential to create a hostile environment for women. This isn't just me and a few people making shit up, read my comment, it's obvious that the authors knew they were on shaky ground. They tried to defuse the situation with a cute little comment, but it would have been better to just change the name. Read this comment for a better explanation if you're actually confused: https://ne…

What creates a hostile environment for woman is where a sector, made of predominately men is scrutinized with a hysterical "boy who cried wolf" mentality. It's a vicious cycle. 1. First there is a tiny group of feminists, mostly consisting of marketers, call themselves coders, but if you were look them up, they're twittering and having fun more than building. They seem very happy to stir indignation. 2. Then, people…

There's male feminists, by the way. I know, mind-boggling for you, absolutely clear to anyone with the empathy of at least a stone.

Re: Bro pages: like man pages, but with examples only

#640

Post by mkdir »

ceol wrote: post #631
mkdir wrote: post #619

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're fighting to create a world in which the intellectual currency is not reason, evidence, or logic; it's self-proclaimed victimhood. If I claim I'm a victim in a way that you're not, it becomes literally impossible for you to prove me wrong. If I go on to claim that we need new policies to protect me from (and/or compensate me for) that victimhood, you can't disagree. You can't do anything other than supplicate.…

> You're fighting to create a world in which the intellectual currency is not reason, evidence, or logic Ah yes, empathy is the enemy of intellect! Truly an argument made by a well-adjusted person. > If I claim I'm a victim in a way that you're not, it becomes literally impossible for you to prove me wrong. That's now what they're saying at all, and the fact you somehow extracted that from their point really shows ho…

Yikes. You "empathetic" activists are consistently some of the meanest, most cruel people in every discussion you wander into. Do you not see how needlessly demeaning and insulting you are? It's remarkable that you cling to the banner of "empathy" while hatred and condescension drips from every word.

And yes, the grandparent poster did say that if you're on the Geek-Feminism-Privileged™ side of a given issue, you have a "vanishingly small" chance of being right, so "you're better off holding your tongue".

Post reply on HN