4 ms·

> I'm inviting you to level up. It's time. Appeal to authority noted. You think you know better than csvan, but without any real arguments, you resort to using

> I'm inviting you to level up. It's time. Appeal to authority noted. You think you know better than csvan, but without any real arguments, you resort to using moral platitudes that you think speak to the crowd. csvan said "a field which is traditionally male-dominated.". You agreed with this yourself by stating that Software is 80-90% male in your experience. Then he followed up with an opinion, stating "I don't think gender matters at all". This was followed by more opinions about what he thinks people should do. So we've established that what you consider "flat wrong" is actually more like "Your one fact is correct, but I disagree with your opinion". Let's bask in the sunlight of agreement for just a moment before moving onto the statement that ultimately drew your ire. Personally I don't think gender matters at all I wonder if you'd have gone on this rant if csvan had said "Personally, gender doesn't matter to me at all..." or "Personally, I don't think gender should matter at all..." because I'm 90% positive that the latter is what he meant to convey. And he's correct. And you agree with him. Gender shouldn't matter at all and people should be valued for their skills instead of their genitalia. Perhaps you would have learned that by having a conversation or thinking about it some more, but you chose to attack instead of giving someone the benefit of the doubt. So, have a downvote. You deserve it.

richmarr 11y ago
Okay, let's start from the top. @csvan: This is to be expected from a field which is traditionally male-dominated. An attempt to justify why there are zero women listed (despite women making up 10-20%). @csvan: Personally I don't think gender matters at all Sure, you could interpret this either as a statement of not-yet-reached ideal or as a statement of eyes-closed naivity. Considering he opened with a rationalisation, a statement of assumed meritocracy, I chose the interpretation that fit. You chose the other one for some reason, which is fine. @csvan: it is great to want to give exposure to minorities, but people should be valued for their skill, not genitalia. It's a common position, but dropping it into this discussion implies that positive discrimination is required in order to list any women on that page, that there are none who deserve to be there. Again, this chimes with my interpretation of "I don't think gender matters", not yours. @WorldWideWayne: And he's correct. And you agree with him. The only thing he said that I agree with is that this is a male-dominated field, and even then, he's implying that women are rare enough to have not produced anyone worthy of high profile. Which isn't true. @WorldWideWayne: Gender shouldn't matter at all... Sure, when we get to that world we can have this conversation again. Back in reality, the playing field isn't flat yet so any talk of meritocracy is based on false assumptions. @WorldWideWayne: So, have a downvote. You deserve it. Uh huh. For criticising his comments rather than holding hands in a prayer circle? For using a couple of rhetorical devices? By your rules I'm pretty sure you should give yourself a downvote. I wonder if you'd have gone on this rant is I hadn't suggested @csvan "level up". Or maybe it's because you agree with him that we're already in a meritocracy. You've been pretty reticent about your actual opinions.
- WorldWideWayne 11y ago
  > An attempt to justify why there are zero women listed (despite women making up 10-20%). You're arguing against a strawman with statistics that you yourself said that you only have anecdotal evidence for. Saying what one expects is vastly different than saying that something is justified. According to you, men are horrible jerks to women in this industry, so why then would you expect those men to honor women by listing them as people to follow? It doesn't make any sense. > Sure, you could interpret this either as... You didn't even try try asking what he meant. Instead you went with the full-on attack. You're setting a great example for the world of tolerant and open-mindedness that you're allegedly arguing for. > Back in reality, the playing field isn't flat yet so any talk of meritocracy is based on false assumptions. How will you possibly know if any one person is already in the proper mindset if you attack them when they say things that you actually agree with like "Gender shouldn't matter at all..."? No, you're right. Shoot first and sort them out later. > Uh huh. For criticising his comments rather than holding hands in a prayer circle? There you go again. You're arguing against your own assumptions. I downvoted you for your unwarranted vitriol, end of story. Have a nice day!
  - richmarr 11y ago
    I downvoted you for your unwarranted vitriol, end of story. Please point out anywhere I was cruel, or criticised @csvan as a person, rather than the maturity of the ideas he expressed. @csvan hasn't replied yet but I'm happy to apologise to him if he felt any of my criticism was directed at him rather than the ideas he expressed. Maybe (correct me if I'm wrong) you saw the "level up" comment as a personal criticism. Well my intention with that comment was to include @csvan and make it clear that he could let go of that opinion and grow. It wasn't vitriol at all. As for the rest of your comments, I honestly don't know if you're trolling me or not. You complain about me using straw men to attack @csvan, then use straw men to attack me ("According to you, men are horrible jerks to women in this industry"). You complain about me not providing data, then provide none yourself. You complain about me not giving @csvan a chance to explain himself then downvote me without engaging in a conversation yourself. What do you see as the root cause of this disagreement?

richmarr 11y ago

Okay, let's start from the top. @csvan: This is to be expected from a field which is traditionally male-dominated. An attempt to justify why there are zero women listed (despite women making up 10-20%). @csvan: Personally I don't think gender matters at all Sure, you could interpret this either as a statement of not-yet-reached ideal or as a statement of eyes-closed naivity. Considering he opened with a rationalisation, a statement of assumed meritocracy, I chose the interpretation that fit. You chose the other one for some reason, which is fine. @csvan: it is great to want to give exposure to minorities, but people should be valued for their skill, not genitalia. It's a common position, but dropping it into this discussion implies that positive discrimination is required in order to list any women on that page, that there are none who deserve to be there. Again, this chimes with my interpretation of "I don't think gender matters", not yours. @WorldWideWayne: And he's correct. And you agree with him. The only thing he said that I agree with is that this is a male-dominated field, and even then, he's implying that women are rare enough to have not produced anyone worthy of high profile. Which isn't true. @WorldWideWayne: Gender shouldn't matter at all... Sure, when we get to that world we can have this conversation again. Back in reality, the playing field isn't flat yet so any talk of meritocracy is based on false assumptions. @WorldWideWayne: So, have a downvote. You deserve it. Uh huh. For criticising his comments rather than holding hands in a prayer circle? For using a couple of rhetorical devices? By your rules I'm pretty sure you should give yourself a downvote. I wonder if you'd have gone on this rant is I hadn't suggested @csvan "level up". Or maybe it's because you agree with him that we're already in a meritocracy. You've been pretty reticent about your actual opinions.

WorldWideWayne 11y ago
> An attempt to justify why there are zero women listed (despite women making up 10-20%). You're arguing against a strawman with statistics that you yourself said that you only have anecdotal evidence for. Saying what one expects is vastly different than saying that something is justified. According to you, men are horrible jerks to women in this industry, so why then would you expect those men to honor women by listing them as people to follow? It doesn't make any sense. > Sure, you could interpret this either as... You didn't even try try asking what he meant. Instead you went with the full-on attack. You're setting a great example for the world of tolerant and open-mindedness that you're allegedly arguing for. > Back in reality, the playing field isn't flat yet so any talk of meritocracy is based on false assumptions. How will you possibly know if any one person is already in the proper mindset if you attack them when they say things that you actually agree with like "Gender shouldn't matter at all..."? No, you're right. Shoot first and sort them out later. > Uh huh. For criticising his comments rather than holding hands in a prayer circle? There you go again. You're arguing against your own assumptions. I downvoted you for your unwarranted vitriol, end of story. Have a nice day!
- richmarr 11y ago
  I downvoted you for your unwarranted vitriol, end of story. Please point out anywhere I was cruel, or criticised @csvan as a person, rather than the maturity of the ideas he expressed. @csvan hasn't replied yet but I'm happy to apologise to him if he felt any of my criticism was directed at him rather than the ideas he expressed. Maybe (correct me if I'm wrong) you saw the "level up" comment as a personal criticism. Well my intention with that comment was to include @csvan and make it clear that he could let go of that opinion and grow. It wasn't vitriol at all. As for the rest of your comments, I honestly don't know if you're trolling me or not. You complain about me using straw men to attack @csvan, then use straw men to attack me ("According to you, men are horrible jerks to women in this industry"). You complain about me not providing data, then provide none yourself. You complain about me not giving @csvan a chance to explain himself then downvote me without engaging in a conversation yourself. What do you see as the root cause of this disagreement?