[roarroar]

It turns out he might be a bit of a jerk after all. Nonetheless that is not the post the GGP was responding to. And your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said in the current thread is reactive behavior.

[lambda]

What he said about women trying to make a progressive movement all about their vagina? What is that even supposed to mean? How is the ruby community a "progressive movement" (yes, he was just quoting someone, but it doesn't even make sense in that context).

This was in response to a man asking that people not act like assholes and name things immature sexual names.

There was no point here. He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by. Asking that people act nicer does not make something a "politically correct thought police 'safe space'". And claiming that asking that people act nicer is "co-opting of male spaces" is a pretty pathetic attempt to play the victim card while simultaneously trying to exclude and marginalize women who have contributed tons to the tech industry.

[pekk]

I don't defend the guy, but here's a hint: what are some of the basic differences between men and women?

The whole concept of 'male space' is a big troll

[lambda]

Yes, I'm familiar with basic anatomy.

Dismissing someone by comparing a man who is asking for there to be less sexualized and derogatory language in a community to "women who want to make it all about their vagina" is nonsense on several axes. For one, the person he was attacking is a man. For another, the whole point of the argument is for it to be less about vaginas, or other sexual differences. Bringing up sex (and especially in violent and derogatory terms, like rape-me and recursive_pimp_slap) can make an environment uncomfortable for people who already feel marginalized in a community.

[roarroar]

>What he said about women trying to make a progressive movement all about their vagina?

It's an outburst. So what? Maybe it's humor, maybe he has some kind of pathological issue with women. It doesn't matter because there is a valid point being completely ignored so people can moan about how "women unfriendly" the post is.

>What is that even supposed to mean? How is the ruby community a "progressive movement"

Firstly, I don't think the Ruby movement is progressive, mostly because it's a shitty language. Secondly, the point is not whether Ruby is or is not progressive. Even if you accept that it's a retrogressive movement his point stands because it is a general one.

>There was no point here. He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by.

I beg to differ. There is a real trend of PC activism aiming to protect sensitive little flowers of various kinds against offense. Your attempt to psychologise the guy is just a cheap tactic to avoid this point.

>Asking that people act nicer does not make something a "politically correct thought police 'safe space'".

The hidden (and incorrect) assumption here is that this is unconnected to PC activism.

>And claiming that asking that people act nicer is "co-opting of male spaces" is a pretty pathetic attempt to play the victim card while simultaneously trying to exclude and marginalize women who have contributed tons to the tech industry.

"Pathetic", "margenalize", "afraid", "exclude", etc. And you say this is unconnected to PC activism? His post didn't marginalize anyone. It was making a fairly specific point that your defense mechanisms are preventing you from seeing.

[lambda]

I'm not attempting to "psychologize" the guy. He made a flat-out misogynistic comment. I don't know anything more about him than that (well, and the other comments which have been quoted on here). But it only takes a single comment of someone calling someone else a "nigger" in an attempt to demean and exclude them before you can call someone a racist. The same is true here; someone who claims that asking that people be a little more sensitive means that women want to make it all about their vagina is clearly lashing out in the same way.

  The hidden (and incorrect) assumption here is that 
  this is unconnected to PC activism.

I'm not even sure what "PC activism" is supposed to mean any more, or why people consider a lot of things they accuse as being "PC activism" to be negative. Most of the times I've seen it thrown around recently were when people were just asking that other people act more nicely. Apparently asking people to act nice is now "PC activism".

I will welcome debate about how much needs to be codified; I hate policies that say "you can't use these X words" as the next guy. But a lot of what people rail about as being "PC activism" is just like this; asking that people be a little more considerate in naming package they're putting into a public repository.

So, what's an appropriate reaction to this post? Maybe to say "OK, listing 'hoe' in there is overkill, that's just being used as a pun on 'rake'." Or maybe saying "hmm, I'm not sure how useful it is to ask people to be nicer while calling them assholes."

What's not an appropriate reaction? Talking about vaginas and male spaces and banning someone who just made a request to be nicer and listed a few examples of the kind of behavior they were talking about.

[roarroar]

>I'm not attempting to "psychologize" the guy.

Yes, you speculated on his mental state quite extensively. Quoting you: "He was just lashing out at something he's afraid of and frustrated by."

>He made a flat-out misogynistic comment.

Sorry, he did nothing of the sort. He made the astute point that women tend to co-opt spaces established by men using activism. Do you deny this?

>Apparently asking people to act nice is now "PC activism".

Nope. Again, it's not just "asking people to be nice", it's a concerted, long-term effort to insert PC memes under the guide of being a nice person.

>But it only takes a single comment of someone calling someone else a "nigger" in an attempt to demean and exclude them before you can call someone a racist.

Nope. People say all sorts of things in anger, and this kind of thinking is exactly the kind of PC stupidity that is becoming a concern.

>Talking about vaginas and male spaces and banning someone who just made a request to be nicer and listed a few examples of the kind of behavior they were talking about.

What's your point here, exactly? That his ban was too harsh? Got anything to say about PC activism (you know, the thing that we were talking about)?

>So, what's an appropriate reaction to this post?

Oh, piss off you moist wanker. Did you stop to think that maybe it's not your job to tell other people how to communicate with others?

[quinnchr]

Do you really honestly think the way in which you communicate with people has no impact?

I completely agree, as a white dude having to worry about the way in which people receive my communication is just so unfair. I mean I call one guy a nigger and all of a sudden I'm racist. I'm not, I was just angry. Admittedly angry enough to call on centuries of historical context and language coached in violence to point out the lower social status of someone. But that's not racist.

It's not your job to tell people how to communicate with others. But it entirely your responsibility to communicate with people in the way they wish to be communicated with, if you want to be heard. This isn't about being PC, it's about not being exclusionary to 50% of the population. Women are not going to want to work with you if you're not willing to be inclusive.

Piss off you moist wanker. Did you stop to think that what you consider PC, other people might consider legitimately offensive? Did you ever stop to think it's not your job to tell women what they're allowed to be offended by? It's honestly pretty impressive that you consider someone expressing their discomfort with sexist language to be worse than the sexist language itself.

[lucisferre]

Pointing out his misogyny is not "ad hominem" as you seem to think and provides further context for understanding the other comment. Not that it's needed, he is pretty clear, I don't think anyone here is misunderstanding it.

[jacalata]

For reference, ad hominem means "attempts to undermine an argument based on an irrelevant fact about the person making the argument" (Wikipedia). It doesn't seem unfair to use it to paraphrase the description "your tactic of discrediting the guy rather than looking at what he actually said".

[roarroar]

Exactly. The guy hating women or not is not _irrelevant_, but it's not relevant in the way GP is trying to use it. That's why he tries to play the "ad hominem" card so he can throw up some moronic straw man about relevancy.

[jacalata]

Actually I was pointing out that lucisferre's use of the term 'ad hominem' to characterise your comment was completely fair and not 'putting words in your mouth' just because you never used the explicit phrase.

[roarroar]

Perhaps you're right. Let's chalk that up to misunderstanding, shall we?

[roarroar]

I didn't bring up the term "ad hominem". Please stop putting words into my mouth. You are very determined to do anything but address anything anyone's actually saying. Your defense mechanisms are showing.