3 ms·
Regardless of intent, it pointlessly and unconstructively derails the conversation into an uninteresting and well trod aside that has nothing to do with the top
by version_five 4y ago
Regardless of intent, it pointlessly and unconstructively derails the conversation into an uninteresting and well trod aside that has nothing to do with the topic
- CoastalCoder 4y agoI think it's okay here because we have threaded conversations. You can just collapse a thread that annoys you to tune it out.
- version_five 4y agoI hate to be that guy, but it's a site guideline: Please don't pick the most provocative thing in an article or post to complain about in the thread. Find something interesting to respond to instead. For a reader clicking on the post thinking there's going to be a good discussion, they get the first post forcing gender politics irrelevantly into the discussion, then a bunch of stupid follow-up meta discussion. Even if they can collapse it, it's already ruined the thread
- CoastalCoder 4y agoYou make a good point about the site guidelines. Although in this particular case, I think you're in the minority in believing that the original comment was provocative.
- whygender 4y agoI think you are the only one of the few people that perceives it as hostile. The rest of us are legitimately curious. If it's a big problem for you, you could collapse the comment thread or report it and see if Dang will take action.
- sebastialonso 4y agoNow it's not uninteresting. I advise you to contact a mod if this thought police role-playing is not enough for your needs.
- bawolff 4y agoI think there is a reasonable argument that the etymology is probably the most interesting thing here. The rest of it is a pretty generic graph/combinatronics theory problem. I mean it is interesting as far graph theory is, but its pretty generic example. Just look at the comments - not a single comment here about the actual concept. I am doubtful it would have been posted here without the provocative name.