3 ms·

I don't agree with you. I don't know what your environment is like, but I notice a lot of people who are pointlessly aggressive and competitive, or who premise

by pekk 11y ago

I don't agree with you. I don't know what your environment is like, but I notice a lot of people who are pointlessly aggressive and competitive, or who premise their aggression on being right about something they're actually wrong about. That doesn't make these people stronger and it doesn't make the world better. It would work better if everyone just focused on doing their own best job, and constantly checked themselves for correctness, rather than acting like they're never wrong, tearing other people down and trying to make themselves look better than they are. Those activities are not producing anything real. Most of the time we are really all just trying to get by and perhaps achieve some shared goal, there is no game to win, and the people who are acting that way are just being asshats. It is not somehow clear-minded and objective to constantly strive for "supremacy" by aggression toward others, it's just messed-up and insecure. (And what gives with implying that weakness is inherent to women? That's something that has no proof at all.)

zxxz 11y ago
Women are not weaker? Ofcourse, physically they are. Otherwise why do we have sport events segregated by sex? There is a reason why they are weaker sex. This one more instance how everyone has been educated/trained to pretend that women are not weaker. And how women are educated to feel offended if they are called weaker sex.
- pekk 11y ago
  That has nothing to do with the earlier discussion, which wasn't about physical strength and wasn't about women being offended. You made a claim, and you were challenged to provide any support of that claim. You have not provided any support for it; and where you could have admitted you were unsure or withdrawn the claim, you tried to change the subject. This is silly, and I'm done with this thread.
  - zxxz 11y ago
    Remember, you have stated that women are not weaker and even asked for a proof. When I provided a proof for physical strength, you say something incoherent. Ok - So let's see if women are equally strong mentally at least. How many great thinkers, world leaders, mathematicians or philosophers are out there who are women? You might say - oh they were suppressed through ages, which again proves that point that they are weaker. No point in not taking things at their face value. What's wrong for someone to accept they are weaker if they really are?
- ck425 11y ago
  We're talking about this mainly in the context of software development, physical strength is irrelevant to ability and as a dev.
hinkley 11y ago
Speaking as someone who has been painted with this brush from time to time: I try to limit myself to getting into arguments over things that will at some point become my responsibility to fix. On some projects, with certain people, that can be a pretty big fraction of the code and so I'm, well... pretty damned nosy. I try to be rough the way you'd expect a good coach to be rough. Not like some snotty know-nothing asshole. But some people don't see it. The way I see it is something like this: Think back to the last four or five Big Emergencies you had. Split everybody into two groups. Team A is all the people who were still working hard on a fix right up until the end. Team B is all the people who gave up, or merely looked on with concerned expressions instead of being helpful. You listen to the people on Team A. Even the people who were part of the problem in the first place (unless there's a pattern of "Test it in Production"). Why? Because Team A is living with the consequences of the bad decisions. The people on Team B get to raise concerns, offer suggestions, and disagree, but they're really spectators. The people who are on Team B -and- who are involved in the problems are the people you really have to watch out for. They have poor judgement and don't clean up after their own messes. Honestly these people should be on performance review, but for reasons I'll never fathom we always seem to forget these indiscretions at annual review time. I honestly wish I knew why. If anyone has a theory, I'd love to hear it.

by pekk 11y ago

zxxz 11y ago

Women are not weaker? Ofcourse, physically they are. Otherwise why do we have sport events segregated by sex? There is a reason why they are weaker sex. This one more instance how everyone has been educated/trained to pretend that women are not weaker. And how women are educated to feel offended if they are called weaker sex.

pekk 11y ago
That has nothing to do with the earlier discussion, which wasn't about physical strength and wasn't about women being offended. You made a claim, and you were challenged to provide any support of that claim. You have not provided any support for it; and where you could have admitted you were unsure or withdrawn the claim, you tried to change the subject. This is silly, and I'm done with this thread.
- zxxz 11y ago
  Remember, you have stated that women are not weaker and even asked for a proof. When I provided a proof for physical strength, you say something incoherent. Ok - So let's see if women are equally strong mentally at least. How many great thinkers, world leaders, mathematicians or philosophers are out there who are women? You might say - oh they were suppressed through ages, which again proves that point that they are weaker. No point in not taking things at their face value. What's wrong for someone to accept they are weaker if they really are?
ck425 11y ago
We're talking about this mainly in the context of software development, physical strength is irrelevant to ability and as a dev.

hinkley 11y ago

Speaking as someone who has been painted with this brush from time to time: I try to limit myself to getting into arguments over things that will at some point become my responsibility to fix. On some projects, with certain people, that can be a pretty big fraction of the code and so I'm, well... pretty damned nosy. I try to be rough the way you'd expect a good coach to be rough. Not like some snotty know-nothing asshole. But some people don't see it. The way I see it is something like this: Think back to the last four or five Big Emergencies you had. Split everybody into two groups. Team A is all the people who were still working hard on a fix right up until the end. Team B is all the people who gave up, or merely looked on with concerned expressions instead of being helpful. You listen to the people on Team A. Even the people who were part of the problem in the first place (unless there's a pattern of "Test it in Production"). Why? Because Team A is living with the consequences of the bad decisions. The people on Team B get to raise concerns, offer suggestions, and disagree, but they're really spectators. The people who are on Team B -and- who are involved in the problems are the people you really have to watch out for. They have poor judgement and don't clean up after their own messes. Honestly these people should be on performance review, but for reasons I'll never fathom we always seem to forget these indiscretions at annual review time. I honestly wish I knew why. If anyone has a theory, I'd love to hear it.