5 ms·

Go and read the article. It is absolutely about oppression. Not necessarily overt (although go and read the TechCrunch comments and be horrified), but it's stil

Go and read the article. It is absolutely about oppression. Not necessarily overt (although go and read the TechCrunch comments and be horrified), but it's still there, and still happening. > OK, that's an argument. You're doing it right... Yeah, that's exactly the sort of stupid, patronising attitude that causes the problem in the first place. I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence in your arguments, that you don't even know what begging the question is, and that someone arguing rationally would have instead pointed out all of the areas in IT where women are treated fairly or overrepresented, and leave it at that.

philwelch 16y ago
"I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence in your arguments..." I haven't made any arguments. I've criticized some statements for using outbursts of emotion and assertion in place of arguments, and I've criticized other statements for implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous to "women are oppressed" rather than actually going through the trouble of arguing the point. But I haven't advanced an argument of my own yet. I have my own tentative answer to "why are women underrepresented in IT"--can you guess what it is? (Probably not.) "...that you don't even know what begging the question is..." Care to enlighten me? Wikipedia: "Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise." Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question, because "women are oppressed" (or the more complete, "women are underrepresented in IT because women are oppressed") is the proposition to be proven. "... and that someone arguing rationally would have instead pointed out all of the areas in IT where women are treated fairly or overrepresented, and leave it at that." Criticizing the form of someone's argument is perfectly rational--more so than criticizing their "stupid, patronizing attitude" or making personal attacks.
- anthonyb 16y ago
  > Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question... Right - so you haven't read the article then? It presents a lot of arguments, not-very-implicitly-at-all. Maybe that's the first place to start.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    I posted my thoughts on the article after I read it yesterday. Here's a link for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1668031 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1668031
    - anthonyb 16y ago
      Yeah I saw that, and thought it was particularly crass and insensitive. Set up both a strawman and a cliche so that you can mock a minority as a character in a Monty Python sketch. Bravo.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]

philwelch 16y ago

"I'll just point out that neither you or Kiba have introduced any evidence in your arguments..." I haven't made any arguments. I've criticized some statements for using outbursts of emotion and assertion in place of arguments, and I've criticized other statements for implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous to "women are oppressed" rather than actually going through the trouble of arguing the point. But I haven't advanced an argument of my own yet. I have my own tentative answer to "why are women underrepresented in IT"--can you guess what it is? (Probably not.) "...that you don't even know what begging the question is..." Care to enlighten me? Wikipedia: "Begging the question (or petitio principii, "assuming the initial point") is a type of logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in the premise." Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question, because "women are oppressed" (or the more complete, "women are underrepresented in IT because women are oppressed") is the proposition to be proven. "... and that someone arguing rationally would have instead pointed out all of the areas in IT where women are treated fairly or overrepresented, and leave it at that." Criticizing the form of someone's argument is perfectly rational--more so than criticizing their "stupid, patronizing attitude" or making personal attacks.

anthonyb 16y ago
> Implicitly treating "women are underrepresented in IT" as synonymous with "women are oppressed" begs the question... Right - so you haven't read the article then? It presents a lot of arguments, not-very-implicitly-at-all. Maybe that's the first place to start.
- philwelch 16y ago
  I posted my thoughts on the article after I read it yesterday. Here's a link for you: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1668031 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1668031
  - anthonyb 16y ago
    Yeah I saw that, and thought it was particularly crass and insensitive. Set up both a strawman and a cliche so that you can mock a minority as a character in a Monty Python sketch. Bravo.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]