9 ms·

> The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband

> The phrase is not "professional" but do you think it's wrong? Would you say policies where, for example, women couldn't get credit cards without their husband's permission, or black people couldn't go to certain schools, cannot be described as the country having its head in its ass? It's not wrong, but speaking that way also doesn't foster a nuanced conversation with emotion in check, hence is bad for the site's culture IMO. And yes, I do think those policies are wrong. There is a big difference between culture and policy though. > Full gender parity in opportunity, however, is extremely important, and this era you're romanticizing with an outrageously misleading description was far, far, far from equal opportunity. I agree 100%. The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality, and in fact may be the majority viewpoint depending on how this site is skewed. If this site fosters an environment where people with slightly abnormal yet nonextremist viewpoints are downvoted to oblivion, it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed. It's not a good environment, even if it matches the majority viewpoint at the time. edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation.

mikeash 9y ago
I'd much rather have a reasonable statement made in course language than an outrageous lie wrapped in friendly-sounding language. "The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.
throwawayjava 9y ago
> it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question: >>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly? This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues". IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer. > edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation. The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with. So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important. In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation. I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.
- TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
  You are right. I had an issue with the crass language, made a bunch of assumptions on their opinions, and responded very poorly. Your post helps me see this, thank you.
nodamage 9y ago
> The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality No. This is a massive strawman that is often repeated to justify the following counter-argument: "well, why aren't you complaining about all the other industries that don't have gender parity?", but it is not actually representative of the opposing viewpoint.

mikeash 9y ago

I'd much rather have a reasonable statement made in course language than an outrageous lie wrapped in friendly-sounding language. "The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality...." What is this based on? I see this stated pretty often, but I don't think I've ever encountered someone who thinks this way.

throwawayjava 9y ago

> it has the potential to form a huge echo chamber where issues like gender parity, cultural values, and any other slightly political issue cannot be discussed As a reminder, the post to which you originally replied was answering this question: >>>>> Did anything significant happen [in the 1960s/1970s] to cause this, or is it just an interesting anomaly? This is a very reasonable and important question about "gender parity, cultural values, and other political issues". IMO the parent provided a pretty decent, if pithy, answer. You have stated that you agree with the substance of parent's answer. > edit: Also, speaking this way pushes people to vote based on emotion instead of whether or not the comment contributed to the conversation. The way I see it, OP answered an important question in a mostly accurate manner. Their language was perhaps crass, but the substance of the "head out of their ass" claim -- that the US prior to 1960 was very bigoted and the political movement to end that bigotry contributed in part but not in whole to a move toward gender parity -- is one that you even seem to agree with. So, parent wrote an accurate answer to a significant question about the very topics you deem important. In turn, you replied with a condescending rebuke of his tone, a sequence of straw-men that distract from the original conversation about the cause of historical trends in employment, and a sequence of inconsistent positions about the role of rhetoric in argumentation. I don't think these sorts of meta-conversations are particularly useful, but the content of your posts contradicts your stated preferences.

TheAdamAndChe 9y ago
You are right. I had an issue with the crass language, made a bunch of assumptions on their opinions, and responded very poorly. Your post helps me see this, thank you.

nodamage 9y ago

> The issue is that _many_ people see full gender parity as equality No. This is a massive strawman that is often repeated to justify the following counter-argument: "well, why aren't you complaining about all the other industries that don't have gender parity?", but it is not actually representative of the opposing viewpoint.