6 ms·

> The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to

> The chauvinism in this comment is insane. Women aren't points on a scoreboard This commenter, the type that is OUTRAGED by speech that hasn't been mangled to be politically correct, is responsible for muffling open and honest communication among people. Specific to this example, there is nothing wrong with the OP's use of scoring - the outraged expressed by the commenter above is basically trolling for a response by feigning outrage.

herbig 11y ago
I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment. People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone. If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.
- Kalium 11y ago
  Perhaps people find the content of the comment sufficiently high-quality that it overrides concerns about language. It's also possible that voters don't share your opinions about what sort of language is "okay" or "not okay". Which wouldn't surprise me in a community with diverse opinions.
pdabbadabba 11y ago
Well, I wasn't outraged before, but I have to admit that I may be feeling a touch of outrage now. The "mangling" of speech to be politically correct and the "muffling" of open and honest communications that some of us are asking for is just this: changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow. There may be someone "trolling for a response by feigning outrage" in this conversation, but I don't think it's GP.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  I strongly agree with this criticism of the language (I winced reading it), but I also agree that the way it was criticised here was unnecessarily inflammatory. There are many people who are not sympathetic to calls for PC language, and including accusations of "insane chauvinism" isn't going to make them any more palatable.
  - pdabbadabba 11y ago
    Fair enough. I agree that the comment could have been more carefully worded. Note, though, that this does not (I hope!) explain the cool reception (to put it mildly) to my own comments in the same vein.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - Kalium 11y ago
      The comment was, well, offensively chauvinist.
  - jameshart 11y ago
    And that's the important issue, after all. We need to make sure that people who enjoy sexist language feel welcome in the technology industry and on forums like this, because otherwise we would so rarely get to hear their perspective.
    - aninhumer 11y ago
      That depends, do you want to feel smug and righteous, or do you actually want to convince people that what they're doing is harmful? Being right is not a substitute for being persuasive.
- lighttower 11y ago
  > changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow. The use case for language is this: You have a picture or idea in your brain that needs to be transmitted over ASCII into my brain. The conventional symbol set for this use case are English words. A priori we received a dictionary of words and their meanings that we assume is identical to all parties. Trouble is that it isn't. IF and only IF the goal of BOTH parties is to reproduce the original message with highest possible fidelity, then the receiver will obtain a copy of the transmitter's dictionary, and use the updated definitions to reproduce the transmitter's message. However if the goal of the receiver is to discredit the transmitter or distract from the point being made, then a great tactic, akin to DNS hijack, is to push onto all receivers an alternative dictionary to the one used by the transmitter. In this case the alterative dictionary elicits outrage, discrediting the transmitter, and hijacking the original discussion. CNN, for example, their goal is NOT to reproduce with high fidelity what congressman X said, rather, their goal is ___ (insert: make it more entertaining, make it more newsworthy, make it click-bait suitable, keep viewers watching, attract ad dollars, curry political favor, drive their own agenda, etc). In addition to pushing an alternative dictionary, they can reinforce with cutting phrases out of context, using selective historical imagery and video, bringing 'experts' to present their views. In summary I feel that HG was using an alternative dictionary attack (akin to DNS hijack), to distract from the substantive content in the OP.
pmarreck 11y ago
It seems that any discussion of specific genders brings this out of some people. The problem is, there IS a double standard, as evidenced in many places, including this OKCupid blog post that was replied to me: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati... That said, generalizing correlations of ANYTHING to gender and then trying to ACT on that, is, generally, a bad idea (just as it is to correlate with race or ethnicity or age or pretty much any other physical attribute).

herbig 11y ago

I'm not outraged, just surprised that people would so heartily upvote such a comment. People should be conscious of the language they use, and create a welcoming community for everyone. If "scoring" women wasn't intended in the context it is usually used in, "scoring" shouldn't be the choice of words and people shouldn't encourage it by upvoting a comment that uses words so poorly.

Kalium 11y ago
Perhaps people find the content of the comment sufficiently high-quality that it overrides concerns about language. It's also possible that voters don't share your opinions about what sort of language is "okay" or "not okay". Which wouldn't surprise me in a community with diverse opinions.

pdabbadabba 11y ago

Well, I wasn't outraged before, but I have to admit that I may be feeling a touch of outrage now. The "mangling" of speech to be politically correct and the "muffling" of open and honest communications that some of us are asking for is just this: changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow. There may be someone "trolling for a response by feigning outrage" in this conversation, but I don't think it's GP.

aninhumer 11y ago
I strongly agree with this criticism of the language (I winced reading it), but I also agree that the way it was criticised here was unnecessarily inflammatory. There are many people who are not sympathetic to calls for PC language, and including accusations of "insane chauvinism" isn't going to make them any more palatable.
- pdabbadabba 11y ago
  Fair enough. I agree that the comment could have been more carefully worded. Note, though, that this does not (I hope!) explain the cool reception (to put it mildly) to my own comments in the same vein.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Kalium 11y ago
    The comment was, well, offensively chauvinist.
- jameshart 11y ago
  And that's the important issue, after all. We need to make sure that people who enjoy sexist language feel welcome in the technology industry and on forums like this, because otherwise we would so rarely get to hear their perspective.
  - aninhumer 11y ago
    That depends, do you want to feel smug and righteous, or do you actually want to convince people that what they're doing is harmful? Being right is not a substitute for being persuasive.
lighttower 11y ago
> changing "score something 'out of your league'" to, e.g., "meet someone 'out of your league.'" I'm not sure why people see this as so hard to swallow. The use case for language is this: You have a picture or idea in your brain that needs to be transmitted over ASCII into my brain. The conventional symbol set for this use case are English words. A priori we received a dictionary of words and their meanings that we assume is identical to all parties. Trouble is that it isn't. IF and only IF the goal of BOTH parties is to reproduce the original message with highest possible fidelity, then the receiver will obtain a copy of the transmitter's dictionary, and use the updated definitions to reproduce the transmitter's message. However if the goal of the receiver is to discredit the transmitter or distract from the point being made, then a great tactic, akin to DNS hijack, is to push onto all receivers an alternative dictionary to the one used by the transmitter. In this case the alterative dictionary elicits outrage, discrediting the transmitter, and hijacking the original discussion. CNN, for example, their goal is NOT to reproduce with high fidelity what congressman X said, rather, their goal is ___ (insert: make it more entertaining, make it more newsworthy, make it click-bait suitable, keep viewers watching, attract ad dollars, curry political favor, drive their own agenda, etc). In addition to pushing an alternative dictionary, they can reinforce with cutting phrases out of context, using selective historical imagery and video, bringing 'experts' to present their views. In summary I feel that HG was using an alternative dictionary attack (akin to DNS hijack), to distract from the substantive content in the OP.

pmarreck 11y ago

It seems that any discussion of specific genders brings this out of some people. The problem is, there IS a double standard, as evidenced in many places, including this OKCupid blog post that was replied to me: http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dati... That said, generalizing correlations of ANYTHING to gender and then trying to ACT on that, is, generally, a bad idea (just as it is to correlate with race or ethnicity or age or pretty much any other physical attribute).