6 ms·

Right, he couched his sexist tropes in specific language that provided him with deniability. It's standard, and you seem to have fallen for it.

by zorpner 12y ago

overgard 12y ago
No: you read into it what you wanted to read into it. He made a specific statement about a person, and you generalized it into all women. That's on you. Does nobody get the benefit of the doubt anymore because bored social justice warriors are looking for a fucking witch-hunt? Downvote away.
- zorpner 12y ago
  No, people who spout sexism that was already old in the 90s do not get the benefit of the doubt. Next question.
  - overgard 12y ago
    So basically, comments made about one person obviously apply to all people, in your world. (Also: do you seriously think that women have such fragile psyches that they can't take a simple joke? What does that say about your view on women?)
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      "do you seriously think that women have such fragile psyches that they can't take a simple joke? What does that say about your view on women?" I think that plenty of people, men and women, have such fragile psyches that they can't take a joke - or, at least, that taking a joke requires extra effort which distracts from the matter at hand. For the record, I don't think the slide was as bad as some people are making it out to be, but to dismiss concerns over it as motivated by sexism is rhetorical prestidigitation and not an actual argument.
    - zorpner 12y ago
      Here's a great post about why, even if this were specifically about his specific girlfriend and didn't code sexist tropes, it would still be unacceptable: http://blog.izs.me/post/87902115343/re-maven-is-like-my-girlfriend http://blog.izs.me/post/87902115343/re-maven-is-like-my-girl...
- germs12 12y ago
  Thank you. Great comment. I was blown away that all my comments on this thread got down voted because I defended the presenter. Even ones where I was thanking someone for posting a reference link. This is a witch-hunt. This is a forum for people to find a fire and add fuel to it. There was nothing wrong with the guys presentation. Up voted.

Right, he couched his sexist tropes in specific language that provided him with deniability. It's standard, and you seem to have fallen for it.

by zorpner 12y ago

Right, he couched his sexist tropes in specific language that provided him with deniability. It's standard, and you seem to have fallen for it.

overgard 12y ago

No: you read into it what you wanted to read into it. He made a specific statement about a person, and you generalized it into all women. That's on you. Does nobody get the benefit of the doubt anymore because bored social justice warriors are looking for a fucking witch-hunt? Downvote away.

zorpner 12y ago
No, people who spout sexism that was already old in the 90s do not get the benefit of the doubt. Next question.
- overgard 12y ago
  So basically, comments made about one person obviously apply to all people, in your world. (Also: do you seriously think that women have such fragile psyches that they can't take a simple joke? What does that say about your view on women?)
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    "do you seriously think that women have such fragile psyches that they can't take a simple joke? What does that say about your view on women?" I think that plenty of people, men and women, have such fragile psyches that they can't take a joke - or, at least, that taking a joke requires extra effort which distracts from the matter at hand. For the record, I don't think the slide was as bad as some people are making it out to be, but to dismiss concerns over it as motivated by sexism is rhetorical prestidigitation and not an actual argument.
  - zorpner 12y ago
    Here's a great post about why, even if this were specifically about his specific girlfriend and didn't code sexist tropes, it would still be unacceptable: http://blog.izs.me/post/87902115343/re-maven-is-like-my-girlfriend http://blog.izs.me/post/87902115343/re-maven-is-like-my-girl...
germs12 12y ago
Thank you. Great comment. I was blown away that all my comments on this thread got down voted because I defended the presenter. Even ones where I was thanking someone for posting a reference link. This is a witch-hunt. This is a forum for people to find a fire and add fuel to it. There was nothing wrong with the guys presentation. Up voted.