5 ms·

I think you might have wrote furries instead of infosec/software?

by cochne 4y ago

Kye 4y ago
The furry/infosec/queer Venn diagram isn't a perfect circle, but the overlap is significant and growing with greater acceptance showing in surveys.
- malfist 4y ago
  Maybe in your social circles it is. If you move outside of the social circle of furries you'll find that they're just a small fraction of the queer population, just as they are only a small fraction of the non-queer population. We might be more accepting of furries than our non-queer counterparts, but that doesn't make us furries ourselves. Claiming furry and queer is anywhere close to a a perfect circle venn diagram is way off base.
  - Kye 4y ago
    I don't know what to do with a response that's completely unbound from anything I said in the thing it's replying to. I didn't say: * all queer people are furry. Most A are B is not all B are A. * that the Venn diagram is anywhere near a perfect circle. In fact, I said that's not the case. HN's guideline on reading things charitably could have saved both of us some annoyance here. Try again. It's absurd to think I could mean the things you thought I meant.
    - burnished 4y ago
      They aren't objecting to 'all' they are objecting to 'most'. Your post reads as LGTBQ is mostly furries, I suspect you meant that furries are mostly LGTBQ?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - Kye 4y ago
        I'm a fan of this guideline: >> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It would be absurd to suggest queer people are mostly furries, so that interpretation is implausible. Act as though the person you reply to is rational, and you can discard the absurd. A strong, good faith reading could reasonably assume I don't know anything about Venn diagrams and didn't realize all the circles are equal when I posted that. I'm assuming good faith, and that's why I didn't just flag their post for trolling. Maybe they're not trolling and just don't practice this principle.
        burnished 4y ago
        Why aren't you applying that principle to yourself here? You could be far more charitable and seek to bridge some misunderstanding. It feels like you don't understand that this expectation is symmetrical.
        Kye 4y ago
        Giving someone some small benefit of the doubt when they make a comment like that is about my limit. This isn't my first rodeo. It's on them to demonstrate their absurd, unreasonable, unfair, completely off the rails read of my comment wasn't meant to kick off a hell thread.

I think you might have wrote furries instead of infosec/software?

by cochne 4y ago

I think you might have wrote furries instead of infosec/software?

Kye 4y ago

The furry/infosec/queer Venn diagram isn't a perfect circle, but the overlap is significant and growing with greater acceptance showing in surveys.

malfist 4y ago
Maybe in your social circles it is. If you move outside of the social circle of furries you'll find that they're just a small fraction of the queer population, just as they are only a small fraction of the non-queer population. We might be more accepting of furries than our non-queer counterparts, but that doesn't make us furries ourselves. Claiming furry and queer is anywhere close to a a perfect circle venn diagram is way off base.
- Kye 4y ago
  I don't know what to do with a response that's completely unbound from anything I said in the thing it's replying to. I didn't say: * all queer people are furry. Most A are B is not all B are A. * that the Venn diagram is anywhere near a perfect circle. In fact, I said that's not the case. HN's guideline on reading things charitably could have saved both of us some annoyance here. Try again. It's absurd to think I could mean the things you thought I meant.
  - burnished 4y ago
    They aren't objecting to 'all' they are objecting to 'most'. Your post reads as LGTBQ is mostly furries, I suspect you meant that furries are mostly LGTBQ?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - Kye 4y ago
      I'm a fan of this guideline: >> "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." It would be absurd to suggest queer people are mostly furries, so that interpretation is implausible. Act as though the person you reply to is rational, and you can discard the absurd. A strong, good faith reading could reasonably assume I don't know anything about Venn diagrams and didn't realize all the circles are equal when I posted that. I'm assuming good faith, and that's why I didn't just flag their post for trolling. Maybe they're not trolling and just don't practice this principle.
      - burnished 4y ago
        Why aren't you applying that principle to yourself here? You could be far more charitable and seek to bridge some misunderstanding. It feels like you don't understand that this expectation is symmetrical.
        Kye 4y ago
        Giving someone some small benefit of the doubt when they make a comment like that is about my limit. This isn't my first rodeo. It's on them to demonstrate their absurd, unreasonable, unfair, completely off the rails read of my comment wasn't meant to kick off a hell thread.