[menacingly]

I'm going to assume that this post is coming from a place of social ineptitude and not malice, but just about everything you've said is insensitive, over-generalizing, frowned-upon, and kind of just untrue.

Honestly, I'm perhaps one of the least "progressive" people in this community, and I think it's pretty uninformed to think your comment is going to be helpful or describes an OK way to behave.

[kazinator]

> everything you've said is insensitive, over-generalizing, frowned-upon, and kind of just untrue.

To be somewhat fair, the grandparent posting makes it clear that its comments apply to 50%.

[crimsonalucard]

I'm fully aware that it's frowned upon. There is definitely no malice intended. Perhaps there is a bit of social ineptitude, but this is the internet.

Let's put it this way. What I said is a generalization, and I framed it as a generalization. In no way did I say it applies to all people. But generalizations illustrate fuzzy truths that are as the adjective aptly states: general.

The parent poster also said something very general. He said that, and I quote: "50% of coders are macho, taciturn, unhelpful frat bros who make anyone who is not a member of their boys club most unwelcome."

There are two ways I could interpret what he said. I could say what the typical millennial would say when he/she encounters anything slightly sexist/racist and tell him that just about everything he said is insensitive, over-generalizing, frowned-upon, and kind of just untrue.

Or I can see things from his perspective and realize that although he is stereotyping, he is definitely illustrating a generality that is a fuzzy aspect of the truth. As a straight male myself perhaps I can say something to help him see things from a straight males' perspective. Of course I would be giving him another generality but a fuzzy truth is still a type of truth.

I want to change what it means to be progressive. The reality of this world is that things are rarely ever fair, but the meaning of "progressive" has become twisted in recent decades. Progressive has come to mean not only treating all people equally, but to state that all races, sexes and people are equal in mental and physical ability. This is not true. European people are taller, asians are shorter... what black magic enforces the attribute that while physical qualities may be extremely different for all peoples, intelligence remains identical across racial boundaries?

This is not a pretty picture but to say that all are equal is to deny reality. Can we be progressive without denying reality?

Take the following stereotype, for example: Men are generally physically stronger then women and thus better suited for jobs that require more physical strength.

I've literally met "progressive" people who deny this reality. This is borderline insanity in the name of progressiveness. We've gone too far.

I support progressiveness, I support equality in judgement and treatment, but I cannot deny and I cannot unsee the reality of the unbalanced universe we live in.

I want to mention that I have had one instance in my life, being a straight male where I have become bros with a gay male. From my perspective we were just bros, his perspective was different. But that is besides the point. I just want to say that I am in a good position to sympathize with both the stereotypical "macho straight male" and the gay male, so it is of my opinion that it would be highly unwise for the parent poster to dismiss what I say too quickly.

[menacingly]

Your initial post made me worry that someone with perhaps an empathy disorder was about to see a small mob gathering outside their home.

I wish you had expanded originally, because I totally agree that GP made a similarly unfair generalization.

In fact, I often wonder why it's constantly reiterated that I could never ever understand the experiences of an "out" group, but those groups regularly purport to understand mine.

[crimsonalucard]

>I wish you had expanded originally, because I totally agree that GP made a similarly unfair generalization.

I don't think you fully understood what I'm saying. I don't believe the GP's generalization was unfair. I believe he made a very accurate generalization. I believe his generalization is just about as accurate as my generalization. I'm just explaining the reasoning behind what he is observing and letting him know that it is not the result of intentional discrimination.

[menacingly]

I felt as a I typed it that "unfair" wasn't the word I was looking for, but that's about all the investment I made in it. Something like "rounding error taken in aggregate", but your wording clarifies well.

Honestly, I don't bump into the 90s sitcom gay guy much, so that strikes me as inaccurate first, but I also don't have much experience with these infamous bros to know how wrong that is either.

Now I'm wondering if my inability to see these bros makes me likely to be one, like a trout thinking "what fish, dude? all I see are my friends"