6 ms·

Poor Stache Overflow. I left Debian as a dev when it finally became apparent that gender and identity politics were dominating the community. I originally joi

Poor Stache Overflow. I left Debian as a dev when it finally became apparent that gender and identity politics were dominating the community. I originally joined for the technical aspect, which felt like a byproduct at the time I left again. And I am a member of a fringe group. But I would never ever behave like most SJWs seem to do these days. And now downvote me, for not agreeing with the underpriviledged.

skrebbel 7y ago
FYI, I think that your comment has merit, but I simply can't bring myself to upvote comments that ask to be downvoted.
nabla9 7y ago
In the 80's I would have called your response as typical feminine response because it's focuses on personal narrative, it's sharing emotion and displaying typical feminine passive aggression using personal narrative and no details that would move discussion forward. Even the 80s sexist me would downvote you because the style and argumentation is not considered manly and rational.
- mlang23 7y ago
  Wow, you are pretty funny! Accusing me of being feminine in a thread like this. May I ask, what drugs are you on?
  - xxs 7y ago
    I think it was sarcasm...
    - mlang23 7y ago
      Hard to tell in a time like this...
  - nabla9 7y ago
    Not you. Your response. It's tone and it's content. Before the positive impact from SJWs the passive aggressive emotional tone you used was associated with femininity.
    - imdsm 7y ago
      I think we need to be very careful when we talk about tone in text-based communication. One of the worst things about this new world of text-borne communication is that we lose most of what makes a conversation. There is no tone, there is no body language, there is no inflection. So how can we truly judge the tone of a comment without inferring details? People today /seem/ to be so ready to disagree, so ready to argue, so on the edge when it comes to opinions, that even objective discussions and comments are taken as personal slights and overlaid with reader inferred malintent. It's the reason why /I believe/ that people who argue on the internet would otherwise get on with each other in person.
      - vfc1 7y ago
        I don't buy that, it's a convenient myth. There is obviously tone in written messages too. Tone is not only about body language, a lot of it is about the choice of words. Tone can literally be inferred by machine learning, check Grammarly, for example, they do that now.
        jcims 7y ago
        Tone can absolutely be extracted from anything written, but the fidelity and accuracy of what was imparted from the source is suspect. Sarcasm in particular is difficult, and is so universally recognized as such that we've constructed a mechanism to signify it.
        vfc1 7y ago
        That is why it's important to be mindful of what we are writing, trying to not write things that might be misinterpreted. Not think, tone can't be inferred from writing so I'm just going to write whatever I want if someone does not like it it's their problem. It's our problem too to care about the tone of what we write and think about how it's going to come across to other people, and not have this illusion that there is no tone in writing.
jmull 7y ago
The problem with focusing on the behavior of certain SJWs is it ignores — and lets stand —the actual underlying issues. If you want to solve any problems you need to move past getting baited or triggered by each provocative statement and engage the underlying issues.
- ethbro 7y ago
  The problem (as I see it, and agree with gp's formulation) is of communities failing to police their own by using double-standards. One set for "us", one set for "them." It's okay for one of "us" to be rude, aggressive, or argue outside of good faith. Because it's in service of justice. But heaven forbid "they" do the same thing. In which case they're terrible people, how dare they, etc. This happens in both liberal-dominated and conservative-dominated forums. And the solution is for each and every one of us, at all times, to call a duck a duck. If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole. Full stop. They should be held to the same standards as anyone else, encouraged to modify their behavior and more closely adhere to general common decency towards other people, or kicked out of their role within the organization. Because, ultimately, they're a cancer. It's just a question of how long before it metastasizes. And idealogical purity is no balm for failing to be a good person. PS: Which isn't to say that one can't pursue just causes. Just make sure your own house is in order before throwing rocks.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - MauranKilom 7y ago
    This is really tricky, because sincere and respectful words by one party can still be perceived as hurtful by another. Especially in this issue, there is frequently no middle ground where both parties are happy. I mean, it's kind of ironic: Calling someone an asshole is undoubtedly rude and aggressive (even when done in good faith). And you said that it's not only ok but necessary when you perceive someone as an asshole. But above you complained exactly about "being rude/aggressive in service of justice". So... which is it?

skrebbel 7y ago

FYI, I think that your comment has merit, but I simply can't bring myself to upvote comments that ask to be downvoted.

nabla9 7y ago

In the 80's I would have called your response as typical feminine response because it's focuses on personal narrative, it's sharing emotion and displaying typical feminine passive aggression using personal narrative and no details that would move discussion forward. Even the 80s sexist me would downvote you because the style and argumentation is not considered manly and rational.

mlang23 7y ago
Wow, you are pretty funny! Accusing me of being feminine in a thread like this. May I ask, what drugs are you on?
- xxs 7y ago
  I think it was sarcasm...
  - mlang23 7y ago
    Hard to tell in a time like this...
- nabla9 7y ago
  Not you. Your response. It's tone and it's content. Before the positive impact from SJWs the passive aggressive emotional tone you used was associated with femininity.
  - imdsm 7y ago
    I think we need to be very careful when we talk about tone in text-based communication. One of the worst things about this new world of text-borne communication is that we lose most of what makes a conversation. There is no tone, there is no body language, there is no inflection. So how can we truly judge the tone of a comment without inferring details? People today /seem/ to be so ready to disagree, so ready to argue, so on the edge when it comes to opinions, that even objective discussions and comments are taken as personal slights and overlaid with reader inferred malintent. It's the reason why /I believe/ that people who argue on the internet would otherwise get on with each other in person.
    - vfc1 7y ago
      I don't buy that, it's a convenient myth. There is obviously tone in written messages too. Tone is not only about body language, a lot of it is about the choice of words. Tone can literally be inferred by machine learning, check Grammarly, for example, they do that now.
      - jcims 7y ago
        Tone can absolutely be extracted from anything written, but the fidelity and accuracy of what was imparted from the source is suspect. Sarcasm in particular is difficult, and is so universally recognized as such that we've constructed a mechanism to signify it.
        vfc1 7y ago
        That is why it's important to be mindful of what we are writing, trying to not write things that might be misinterpreted. Not think, tone can't be inferred from writing so I'm just going to write whatever I want if someone does not like it it's their problem. It's our problem too to care about the tone of what we write and think about how it's going to come across to other people, and not have this illusion that there is no tone in writing.

jmull 7y ago

The problem with focusing on the behavior of certain SJWs is it ignores — and lets stand —the actual underlying issues. If you want to solve any problems you need to move past getting baited or triggered by each provocative statement and engage the underlying issues.

ethbro 7y ago
The problem (as I see it, and agree with gp's formulation) is of communities failing to police their own by using double-standards. One set for "us", one set for "them." It's okay for one of "us" to be rude, aggressive, or argue outside of good faith. Because it's in service of justice. But heaven forbid "they" do the same thing. In which case they're terrible people, how dare they, etc. This happens in both liberal-dominated and conservative-dominated forums. And the solution is for each and every one of us, at all times, to call a duck a duck. If someone is an asshole, they're an asshole. Full stop. They should be held to the same standards as anyone else, encouraged to modify their behavior and more closely adhere to general common decency towards other people, or kicked out of their role within the organization. Because, ultimately, they're a cancer. It's just a question of how long before it metastasizes. And idealogical purity is no balm for failing to be a good person. PS: Which isn't to say that one can't pursue just causes. Just make sure your own house is in order before throwing rocks.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- MauranKilom 7y ago
  This is really tricky, because sincere and respectful words by one party can still be perceived as hurtful by another. Especially in this issue, there is frequently no middle ground where both parties are happy. I mean, it's kind of ironic: Calling someone an asshole is undoubtedly rude and aggressive (even when done in good faith). And you said that it's not only ok but necessary when you perceive someone as an asshole. But above you complained exactly about "being rude/aggressive in service of justice". So... which is it?