5 ms·

If it were all just a joke then it might be fun and games but it's certainly not professional. But it's also not just a joke. It's really sad and depressing be

If it were all just a joke then it might be fun and games but it's certainly not professional. But it's also not just a joke. It's really sad and depressing because incels are real and there are real people who think and perceive reality through those fucked up lenses.

graderjs 5y ago
So why accept their meaning of it? You can acknowledge that some people see it in that way that you disagree with but you can also see it in your own way. Why require them to change? Why be held hostage to the opinions of others because someone has a different idea from you? That's sad, and crazy, because the implications is you require everyone in the world to have the same ideas as you, ideological purity, or you won't touch it. Which is sad, crazy, toxic and dangerous. But people promoting that sort of persecutory viewpoint seem to lack the empathy or awareness to see what their own position really is. When i see this, i think it's reasonably funny, i understand it might upset some people, but i also think, what's wrong with virgins? I know some people might be of the view that associating the so called "less desirable" traits with virgins is "unfair", but i just see it as, funny and dumb that people would actually believe that has any validity, because it presupposes some idea that virgins are bad. So what's wrong with being a virgin? I hold all these competing interpretations in my head at once but i don't let the ones i dislike win out, i just keep my own. I think the ideological purity requirement where you demand other people drop interpretations that you dislike, is toxic because you think you can control other people's thoughts, saying other people are "wrong" because of an idea in your own head, and failing to grok the key personal responsibility boundary that other people are not responsible for your feelings. If you arrive at a set of interpretations that you find personally upsetting, change the set, because you're giving validity to that interpretation that you pretended to disagree with, because if you had your own interpretation that disagreed with that you wouldn't be so troubled by these other ones you dislike. I agree that this is s hard thing to do sometimes, but precisely I think to the degree to which you are internally validating the interpretation you find repellant. It's actually very helpful to shift your own perspective, in these cases. Don't confuse this with other cases where it's more clear cut and people are doing something bad. I'm not saying "interpret" away bad intent, or bad actions, just... In cases where you can see the competing interpretations, (maybe indicated by the fact that there's a lot of other people who are not troubled by this and think that it's okay, which is perhaps a defining characteristic of things where you shouldn't be interpreting away the bad intent or bad actions are where the majority the vast majority of people not just people in your echo chamber but the vast majority of people find these thing repellent and bad and only a small, generally regarded as twisted, minority think it's acceptable), but when you have a case like this where there are competing interpretations, and you find yourself arriving at interpretations which you dislike then don't require everyone else to change and drop their interpretations, or not say the things they think, rather just own your own reactions and change your own dominant interpretation in your head. Say you don't like this because you make it mean people are saying virgins are weak and awful, and you're a virgin, so you feel people are attacking you. But say you also feel deep down that there's nothing wrong with being a virgin. So just hold to your own interpretation and make that dominant. So you think it's funny because all these people are counting on the implicit association that virgins are not good but you think what's wrong with being a virgin so you think it's funny that all these people have that belief. That they have that belief doesn't affect your belief and trust in yourself. But if deep down you really hate yourself then you'll have to change that belief but if you do hate yourself then that's not something you can blame other people for. so if you hate yourself you can ask other people to stop saying the belief that you feel is a reflection of your own self-hatred. because because what they're saying only has significance to you because you already believe it. In either case of you blame others for your reaction, you have the concept of responsibility all wrong and it will get you in a bond. So hopefully this helps you out if that's the case. This thing i described is actually really effective for a lot of situations (not just this one) particularly where there's ambiguity and where you don't really understand what someone meant when they did a certain thing. Don't be trapped by other people's interpretations, and especially so when you're maybe just imagining what they are, rather than knowing, but in either case, hold your own dominant interpretation that you like. Then you won't be troubled. And if you're not troubled, then everything's good. I know this is not easy, from personal experience, but it's possible and it's effective. So if you try it i think it might work for you ;p ;) xx
- hellotomyrars 5y ago
  I just personally don't think it's funny because it's depressing to think about the people who actually think this way. I'd rather not give it any air at all. Like I don't think it's funny to dunk on really, and I think those people are generally unwell so it's really punching down which is not something I think is good or funny. My opinion on this doesn't actually matter to anyone who isn't me, so whatever I guess, just stating it, same as anyone else here. However in the context of the GP, they're 100% correct in the sense that this isn't appropriate for the workplace. So it's kind of a shame that it's actually technically very good/useful. The author is free to do whatever they want. I'm not asking them to change, but it's definitely a shame to tie this otherwise good code to this meme.
  - graderjs 5y ago
    The only shame I think is tying the work, and yourself, to an interpretation of the meme, something you make it mean, that you dislike, and then saying someone else's work is lessened because you've interpreted it in those ways that you judge bad. Maybe that meaning wasn't in the mind of the creator at all. Or maybe the people who you believe think a certain way actually feel another way about it. Whatever the "meme trope" or specific "meme instance" creator intended it to mean (if anything), that doesn't mean that's the "only" meaning a thing can have. It might mean one thing to some person or group and something to you. To me it's funny that they think associating negative traits with "virgin" is a valid comparison. To me, it's obviously not but so laughable that while the jokes the people are making about coding, to me, are funny, the ways they frame it, is funny for being so immature.. But it's humour, I don't want to "explain" it. Maybe they use this meme with irony, appropriate the "chad-virgin" dichotomy, in a satirical way, as they think it's false. Seriously, who cares? Who cares what the creator made it mean, in the basic sense. Because you have the power to interpret it your way. Why limit your joy by thinking, someone somewhere might see this in a way they dislike, therefore I cannot enjoy it. I know it's not easy, because you can be aware of how other people might take it, but that doesn't mean you have to align with that. Otherwise the world is this network where everyone's watching everyone else for "heretical behavior or thought" and trying to bizarrely punish that, just because they can't make a good boundary between their thoughts and feelings, and everyone else's. Everyone can make it mean what they want. It's a subtle point, easy to nod at but hard to actually grok what that means. You're judging this work, and this meme based on what you're making it mean, based on how you're choosing to interpret what you believe some other group of people, who you believe it's connected to, makes it mean. You're hostage to what you think are the beliefs of some other group. I don't think you're crazy, but I think that idea is crazy, because you're free to make it mean what you want. It's pretty common nowadays tho I think. Again saying it's not appropriate to the workplace is a whole other set of relative value judgments and interpretations. Because the word "virgin" is included and maybe someone can connect this meme to some group they're afraid of or they judge as bad, therefore a workplace is unable to handle that? I think that says something about the toxic/unworkable fragility of workplaces. We should be robust enough to be able to consider these cultural artefacts without creating danger or toxicity. If we cannot consider something, we're unable to really reflect on that, and I believe the workplace culture can be at risk of emanating those things it will not allow itself to really engage with or see. To be it's an obvious but also subtle point. We won't allow ourselves to look at a sort of implicit bias that might be present somehow in one interpretation of a meme? Then we also won't see it in the workplace. And "everything's fine" when really a workplace culture is toxic. Introspection and criticism can be shielded behind the arbitrary "area denial" system of "inappropriate for workplace". There's clearly lines (i.e, people just casually sharing porn in a non-porn-industry workplace, totally uncool, right? because that's some private intimate activity related thing that has nothing to do with sort of workplace relationships)...but sharing memes and humour? That's not ok? I've noticed European commenters say before that American workplaces are too afraid of themselves. I don't know if you're view comes from that basis or not, and while it's subtle I believe these sorts of dynamics (of workplaces creating traits they censor from consideration) operate. I think the notion that they simply must be censored from the workplace is false, and relates to that bad idea of ideological purity I was talking about. Our workplace should be robust enough to view the thing in the frame we choose, not hostage to the frame we are "afraid to name".
matheusmoreira 5y ago
Is it really so fucked up? I've seen people on this very site react to the existence of incels in a way that literally reinforces that world view.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  Incels as a group are a growing threat on a number of domestic terrorism watchlists. Its pretty serious actually. I don't want to understate them as a threat, but I don't want to overstate them as a threat either. Nonetheless, they are becoming more-and-more violent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Mass_murders_and_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Mass_murders_and_violenc... Its definitely one of those things we need to keep an eye on. If they get more violent and become a larger movement, it could be dangerous. The grievances they air easily turn into mass shooting events. They're beginning to recognize each other as martyrs (ex: Nikolas Cruz memorialized Elliot Rodger). For some reason, they're able to find each other online and push each other into extremism and even violent acts.
  - JoeyBananas 5y ago
    Speaking of the incel movement like they are Al Qaeda is dumb. There is absolutely zero reason to be legitimately afraid of them. Sure, a couple virgins have actually killed people in real life out of sexual frustration, but that's 100% inevitable given that there are billions of people on the planet. Don't let the threat of incels keep you up at night
    - elzbardico 5y ago
      Even the threat of alqaeda Style terrorism is exaggerated. We should be way more concerned about driving or even or diets as death risks than Al-qaeda
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      I feel like I've pointed out their threat level appropriately. Roughly on the same scale as other domestic terrorists: eco-terrorists, abortion bombers, and other mass shooters. And it should be noted that unlike eco-terrorists or abortion bombers, an extreme violent incel wants to kill people as part of their grievances... and not just cause damage.

graderjs 5y ago

So why accept their meaning of it? You can acknowledge that some people see it in that way that you disagree with but you can also see it in your own way. Why require them to change? Why be held hostage to the opinions of others because someone has a different idea from you? That's sad, and crazy, because the implications is you require everyone in the world to have the same ideas as you, ideological purity, or you won't touch it. Which is sad, crazy, toxic and dangerous. But people promoting that sort of persecutory viewpoint seem to lack the empathy or awareness to see what their own position really is. When i see this, i think it's reasonably funny, i understand it might upset some people, but i also think, what's wrong with virgins? I know some people might be of the view that associating the so called "less desirable" traits with virgins is "unfair", but i just see it as, funny and dumb that people would actually believe that has any validity, because it presupposes some idea that virgins are bad. So what's wrong with being a virgin? I hold all these competing interpretations in my head at once but i don't let the ones i dislike win out, i just keep my own. I think the ideological purity requirement where you demand other people drop interpretations that you dislike, is toxic because you think you can control other people's thoughts, saying other people are "wrong" because of an idea in your own head, and failing to grok the key personal responsibility boundary that other people are not responsible for your feelings. If you arrive at a set of interpretations that you find personally upsetting, change the set, because you're giving validity to that interpretation that you pretended to disagree with, because if you had your own interpretation that disagreed with that you wouldn't be so troubled by these other ones you dislike. I agree that this is s hard thing to do sometimes, but precisely I think to the degree to which you are internally validating the interpretation you find repellant. It's actually very helpful to shift your own perspective, in these cases. Don't confuse this with other cases where it's more clear cut and people are doing something bad. I'm not saying "interpret" away bad intent, or bad actions, just... In cases where you can see the competing interpretations, (maybe indicated by the fact that there's a lot of other people who are not troubled by this and think that it's okay, which is perhaps a defining characteristic of things where you shouldn't be interpreting away the bad intent or bad actions are where the majority the vast majority of people not just people in your echo chamber but the vast majority of people find these thing repellent and bad and only a small, generally regarded as twisted, minority think it's acceptable), but when you have a case like this where there are competing interpretations, and you find yourself arriving at interpretations which you dislike then don't require everyone else to change and drop their interpretations, or not say the things they think, rather just own your own reactions and change your own dominant interpretation in your head. Say you don't like this because you make it mean people are saying virgins are weak and awful, and you're a virgin, so you feel people are attacking you. But say you also feel deep down that there's nothing wrong with being a virgin. So just hold to your own interpretation and make that dominant. So you think it's funny because all these people are counting on the implicit association that virgins are not good but you think what's wrong with being a virgin so you think it's funny that all these people have that belief. That they have that belief doesn't affect your belief and trust in yourself. But if deep down you really hate yourself then you'll have to change that belief but if you do hate yourself then that's not something you can blame other people for. so if you hate yourself you can ask other people to stop saying the belief that you feel is a reflection of your own self-hatred. because because what they're saying only has significance to you because you already believe it. In either case of you blame others for your reaction, you have the concept of responsibility all wrong and it will get you in a bond. So hopefully this helps you out if that's the case. This thing i described is actually really effective for a lot of situations (not just this one) particularly where there's ambiguity and where you don't really understand what someone meant when they did a certain thing. Don't be trapped by other people's interpretations, and especially so when you're maybe just imagining what they are, rather than knowing, but in either case, hold your own dominant interpretation that you like. Then you won't be troubled. And if you're not troubled, then everything's good. I know this is not easy, from personal experience, but it's possible and it's effective. So if you try it i think it might work for you ;p ;) xx

hellotomyrars 5y ago
I just personally don't think it's funny because it's depressing to think about the people who actually think this way. I'd rather not give it any air at all. Like I don't think it's funny to dunk on really, and I think those people are generally unwell so it's really punching down which is not something I think is good or funny. My opinion on this doesn't actually matter to anyone who isn't me, so whatever I guess, just stating it, same as anyone else here. However in the context of the GP, they're 100% correct in the sense that this isn't appropriate for the workplace. So it's kind of a shame that it's actually technically very good/useful. The author is free to do whatever they want. I'm not asking them to change, but it's definitely a shame to tie this otherwise good code to this meme.
- graderjs 5y ago
  The only shame I think is tying the work, and yourself, to an interpretation of the meme, something you make it mean, that you dislike, and then saying someone else's work is lessened because you've interpreted it in those ways that you judge bad. Maybe that meaning wasn't in the mind of the creator at all. Or maybe the people who you believe think a certain way actually feel another way about it. Whatever the "meme trope" or specific "meme instance" creator intended it to mean (if anything), that doesn't mean that's the "only" meaning a thing can have. It might mean one thing to some person or group and something to you. To me it's funny that they think associating negative traits with "virgin" is a valid comparison. To me, it's obviously not but so laughable that while the jokes the people are making about coding, to me, are funny, the ways they frame it, is funny for being so immature.. But it's humour, I don't want to "explain" it. Maybe they use this meme with irony, appropriate the "chad-virgin" dichotomy, in a satirical way, as they think it's false. Seriously, who cares? Who cares what the creator made it mean, in the basic sense. Because you have the power to interpret it your way. Why limit your joy by thinking, someone somewhere might see this in a way they dislike, therefore I cannot enjoy it. I know it's not easy, because you can be aware of how other people might take it, but that doesn't mean you have to align with that. Otherwise the world is this network where everyone's watching everyone else for "heretical behavior or thought" and trying to bizarrely punish that, just because they can't make a good boundary between their thoughts and feelings, and everyone else's. Everyone can make it mean what they want. It's a subtle point, easy to nod at but hard to actually grok what that means. You're judging this work, and this meme based on what you're making it mean, based on how you're choosing to interpret what you believe some other group of people, who you believe it's connected to, makes it mean. You're hostage to what you think are the beliefs of some other group. I don't think you're crazy, but I think that idea is crazy, because you're free to make it mean what you want. It's pretty common nowadays tho I think. Again saying it's not appropriate to the workplace is a whole other set of relative value judgments and interpretations. Because the word "virgin" is included and maybe someone can connect this meme to some group they're afraid of or they judge as bad, therefore a workplace is unable to handle that? I think that says something about the toxic/unworkable fragility of workplaces. We should be robust enough to be able to consider these cultural artefacts without creating danger or toxicity. If we cannot consider something, we're unable to really reflect on that, and I believe the workplace culture can be at risk of emanating those things it will not allow itself to really engage with or see. To be it's an obvious but also subtle point. We won't allow ourselves to look at a sort of implicit bias that might be present somehow in one interpretation of a meme? Then we also won't see it in the workplace. And "everything's fine" when really a workplace culture is toxic. Introspection and criticism can be shielded behind the arbitrary "area denial" system of "inappropriate for workplace". There's clearly lines (i.e, people just casually sharing porn in a non-porn-industry workplace, totally uncool, right? because that's some private intimate activity related thing that has nothing to do with sort of workplace relationships)...but sharing memes and humour? That's not ok? I've noticed European commenters say before that American workplaces are too afraid of themselves. I don't know if you're view comes from that basis or not, and while it's subtle I believe these sorts of dynamics (of workplaces creating traits they censor from consideration) operate. I think the notion that they simply must be censored from the workplace is false, and relates to that bad idea of ideological purity I was talking about. Our workplace should be robust enough to view the thing in the frame we choose, not hostage to the frame we are "afraid to name".

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Is it really so fucked up? I've seen people on this very site react to the existence of incels in a way that literally reinforces that world view.

dragontamer 5y ago
Incels as a group are a growing threat on a number of domestic terrorism watchlists. Its pretty serious actually. I don't want to understate them as a threat, but I don't want to overstate them as a threat either. Nonetheless, they are becoming more-and-more violent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Mass_murders_and_violence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incel#Mass_murders_and_violenc... Its definitely one of those things we need to keep an eye on. If they get more violent and become a larger movement, it could be dangerous. The grievances they air easily turn into mass shooting events. They're beginning to recognize each other as martyrs (ex: Nikolas Cruz memorialized Elliot Rodger). For some reason, they're able to find each other online and push each other into extremism and even violent acts.
- JoeyBananas 5y ago
  Speaking of the incel movement like they are Al Qaeda is dumb. There is absolutely zero reason to be legitimately afraid of them. Sure, a couple virgins have actually killed people in real life out of sexual frustration, but that's 100% inevitable given that there are billions of people on the planet. Don't let the threat of incels keep you up at night
  - elzbardico 5y ago
    Even the threat of alqaeda Style terrorism is exaggerated. We should be way more concerned about driving or even or diets as death risks than Al-qaeda
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    I feel like I've pointed out their threat level appropriately. Roughly on the same scale as other domestic terrorists: eco-terrorists, abortion bombers, and other mass shooters. And it should be noted that unlike eco-terrorists or abortion bombers, an extreme violent incel wants to kill people as part of their grievances... and not just cause damage.