[richmarr]

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]

> 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]

  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?

[WorldWideWayne]

The root cause of my responses is your attitude. You berated this person for no good reason after reading two sentences of what they had to say. Regardless of what you think about how I'm responding to this, I wish you would just acknowledge that simple fact.

Telling someone that they are sticking their fingers in their ear (strongly implying that they're acting like a child) and then telling them to "level up" clearly conveys vitriol. It's just a bullshit, reactionary, polarizing and inflammatory statement to make. You say that you want everybody to respect each other, but then you do that. I don't think I can spell it out any more clearly.

(Also, when I said "According to you, men are horrible jerks" I was referring to your view of the "utopian finger-in-ears attitude [which] ignores the reality of the harrassment and the systemic uphill battle female devs face". Clearly one can say that you think industry men are horrible jerks without creating a strawman. It's a misunderstanding, I didn't quote you out of laziness. There's a fine line between a misunderstanding and a strawman, but it's there. Why don't we just chalk this whole exchange up as a misunderstanding?)

You're hot on the subject of women's rights. I get it. But I'm glad that paulcole's original question that started the whole sub-thread got many downvotes here because my own opinion is that I'm sick of hearing about women's plight in the first world. Give me a fraking break. This is a post about Javascript. Let's talk about that and if the alleged 10-20% of women in the industry decides to join in to talk about the actual fraking topic, let's not make a big deal about it.

[richmarr]

  You berated this person...

I disagree.

  Telling someone that they are sticking their fingers in their ear 
  (strongly implying that they're acting like a child) and then 
  telling them to "level up" clearly conveys vitriol.

I think @csvan shared an immature opinion, and I'm happy to stand by that.

It's not a personal attack. Everyone has shared immature or half-informed opinions; it's a human thing to do. Do I think @csvan is a bad person? I sincerely doubt it.

Vitriol means "bitterness or cruelty". Why do you think it vitriolic for me to treat @csvan's comments as immature?

He made his comments because he considers himself a good guy, defending meritocracy. I'm making my comments because there's plenty of evidence of flawed assumptions rotting away underneath that meritocracy. I'm not angry with him, or bitter, and I don't want to hurt his feelings. All I want to do is change his mind, and whoever else reads this thread. Yours too.

  This is a post about Javascript. Let's talk about that...

No, this is a post about "JS The Right Way" and all it entails, authors, visual design, and content, including the list of people to follow. Stop deflecting.

  ...my own opinion is that I'm sick of hearing about women's plight in the first world.

The "first world" comment is red herring; just because a baby dies or a bomb goes off in some distant country doesn't mean we should ignore lesser problems closer to home. That leaves you being "sick of hearing about women's plight". If you were just bored of hearing about it you'd just stop listening, so this is something else.

Am I wrong? Does hearing about the tech industry being inhospitable to women make you angry? If so, why?

[babby]

I had the displeasure of reading most of what you wrote and am writing this to convince you of something:

Please stop. Your SJW politics is off topic and in my opinion; utterly trivial nonsense. You were out-argued and still you found it in yourself to write more damage control comments.

I'm certain the reason people on HN don't call you out on this more often is the latent fear of being shadowbanned due to political correctness.

You made this your personal little soapbox and your posts reek of entitlement. Stop.

[richmarr]

  Please stop... You were out-argued...

I disagree. If you'd like to explain how you believe that, I'm happy to listen, but my guess is that since you're using 'SJW' as a snarl-word you've read this entire thread through the filter of confirmation bias.

  Your SJW politics is off topic...

Explain how. The topic is the page linked to (with a nudge towards what might be of interest to hackers), not just one aspect of the page, but the entire page... author, design, and content including the list of who to follow.

It's your choice whether you want to narrow your conversation to just the programming language aspects of that page, but I don't see how you justifiably claim I'm off-topic.

[WorldWideWayne]

You seem pretty bitter to me. And there's a reason the first question here has been downvoted, because it's off-topic.