4 ms·

> In the year 2013 this question is so lazy, or ignorant, it is effectively biggotry. Or perhaps trolling. No it's not. It's a valid question that must be ask

by Goladus 14y ago

> In the year 2013 this question is so lazy, or ignorant, it is effectively biggotry. Or perhaps trolling. No it's not. It's a valid question that must be asked and answered and can't be ignored just because people get tired of hearing it. The far bigger plague is the way honest, legitimate questions get met with shaming and ridicule instead of knowledge-enhancing answers. Also: ignorant is almost never a valid accusation to make against someone asking a question. Asking a question by definition means that one is admitting some amount of ignorance. Calling it out is exceptionally rude and counter to the spirit of honest debate.

DanBC 14y ago
> It's a valid question that must be asked and answered and can't be ignored just because people get tired of hearing it. It is a valid question. It has been asked, and answered, many many times, with research, with opinion and philosophy, with politics. Concern trolling is "just asking questions" - there comes a point where we need to say that these questions have been answered thoroughly, and that there's little left to be said about them, and that people who want the answer should really do the minimal amount of work needed to get very many answers. This is not a question plagued by the LMGTFY problem, where people are told to use a search engine, but they only find other people asking the question and being told to use a search engine.
- return0 14y ago
  Maybe you could point to studies that answer my valid, but yet ignorant and bigoted question of whether it's a genuine gender difference of preferences or sexism. "Opinion and philosophy and politics" barely counts as evidence in my book. Relevant documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ
- Goladus 14y ago
  This is not a question plagued by the LMGTFY problem, where people are told to use a search engine, but they only find other people asking the question and being told to use a search engine. What it is, is a question burdened with too many assumptions to be answered easily. The next time you see it, try identifying some of those assumptions and challenging them, rather than getting all pissed off. You might be pleased with the results. For example: "Is interest in the field important, anyway? Would lack of interest actually explain the lack of participation? It doesn't have to, it's possible to pursue a career despite not having much interest, especially initially." "Intimidation-by-men vs. lack-of-interest is a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it could be both or neither."
wonderzombie 14y ago
The far bigger plague is the way honest, legitimate questions get met with shaming and ridicule instead of knowledge-enhancing answers. Take these honest, legitimate, and perhaps well-intentioned questions. Take every man who is skeptical of this whenever a woman brings up her experiences. Take arbitrary levels of skepticism as well as standards of proof, since we're talking about varying individuals. Multiply all that, and try to imagine answering that nearly every time the topic comes up. It's a rhetorical DDoS, effectively. And people get sick as shit of it, given (among other things) the difficulty in determining who's even operating in good faith. In general people get frustrated that the questioners expect the questioned to take sole or primary responsibility for educating every single skeptic. You might feel like you, personally, are being shamed, but to be honest, this rounds down to a subset of male behavior, in aggregate. For me, the solution is to give women in particular the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this. It makes these discussions a hell of a lot more fruitful, and I've learned a hell of a lot since.
- Goladus 14y ago
  Rhetorical DDoS goes both ways. In fact it even goes more ways than both if you consider the amount of straw-manning that goes on amongst propagandists. Frustration may be true but is merely an excuse for individual's behavior. It doesn't make the position valid or the rhetoric any less destructive to discussion. Your dog might chew a hole in your couch. You might say it's because he has separation anxiety. Which is true but there's still a hole in the couch. For me, the solution is to give women in particular the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this. It makes these discussions a hell of a lot more fruitful, and I've learned a hell of a lot since. The solution to what? The benefit of the doubt when? Which discussions? Where has there been denial of experience? How about giving the benefit of doubt to any party who presents their view reasonably? return0 was not attempting to shut down discussion. He was not attempting to invalidate or shout down any particular lines of reasoning. He was not attacking anyone. He considered shantanubala's point but remained unconvinced and sought further argument.

by Goladus 14y ago

DanBC 14y ago

> It's a valid question that must be asked and answered and can't be ignored just because people get tired of hearing it. It is a valid question. It has been asked, and answered, many many times, with research, with opinion and philosophy, with politics. Concern trolling is "just asking questions" - there comes a point where we need to say that these questions have been answered thoroughly, and that there's little left to be said about them, and that people who want the answer should really do the minimal amount of work needed to get very many answers. This is not a question plagued by the LMGTFY problem, where people are told to use a search engine, but they only find other people asking the question and being told to use a search engine.

return0 14y ago
Maybe you could point to studies that answer my valid, but yet ignorant and bigoted question of whether it's a genuine gender difference of preferences or sexism. "Opinion and philosophy and politics" barely counts as evidence in my book. Relevant documentary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ
Goladus 14y ago
This is not a question plagued by the LMGTFY problem, where people are told to use a search engine, but they only find other people asking the question and being told to use a search engine. What it is, is a question burdened with too many assumptions to be answered easily. The next time you see it, try identifying some of those assumptions and challenging them, rather than getting all pissed off. You might be pleased with the results. For example: "Is interest in the field important, anyway? Would lack of interest actually explain the lack of participation? It doesn't have to, it's possible to pursue a career despite not having much interest, especially initially." "Intimidation-by-men vs. lack-of-interest is a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one or the other, it could be both or neither."

wonderzombie 14y ago

The far bigger plague is the way honest, legitimate questions get met with shaming and ridicule instead of knowledge-enhancing answers. Take these honest, legitimate, and perhaps well-intentioned questions. Take every man who is skeptical of this whenever a woman brings up her experiences. Take arbitrary levels of skepticism as well as standards of proof, since we're talking about varying individuals. Multiply all that, and try to imagine answering that nearly every time the topic comes up. It's a rhetorical DDoS, effectively. And people get sick as shit of it, given (among other things) the difficulty in determining who's even operating in good faith. In general people get frustrated that the questioners expect the questioned to take sole or primary responsibility for educating every single skeptic. You might feel like you, personally, are being shamed, but to be honest, this rounds down to a subset of male behavior, in aggregate. For me, the solution is to give women in particular the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this. It makes these discussions a hell of a lot more fruitful, and I've learned a hell of a lot since.

Goladus 14y ago
Rhetorical DDoS goes both ways. In fact it even goes more ways than both if you consider the amount of straw-manning that goes on amongst propagandists. Frustration may be true but is merely an excuse for individual's behavior. It doesn't make the position valid or the rhetoric any less destructive to discussion. Your dog might chew a hole in your couch. You might say it's because he has separation anxiety. Which is true but there's still a hole in the couch. For me, the solution is to give women in particular the benefit of the doubt when it comes to things like this. It makes these discussions a hell of a lot more fruitful, and I've learned a hell of a lot since. The solution to what? The benefit of the doubt when? Which discussions? Where has there been denial of experience? How about giving the benefit of doubt to any party who presents their view reasonably? return0 was not attempting to shut down discussion. He was not attempting to invalidate or shout down any particular lines of reasoning. He was not attacking anyone. He considered shantanubala's point but remained unconvinced and sought further argument.