Most active commenters
  • smokeyj(4)

←back to thread

791 points 317070 | 12 comments | | HN request time: 1.637s | source | bottom
Show context
smokeyj[dead post] ◴[] No.15010166[source]
And your contribution is.. Mansplaining?
1. michaelmrose ◴[] No.15010344[source]
Mansplaining is one of those words like libtard or freetard that indicates that the user is unlikely to say anything insightful or deep.
replies(3): >>15010498 #>>15010553 #>>15010752 #
2. reitanqild ◴[] No.15010498[source]
In this particular case I think it was used to a particular effect.

The irony here is tptacek (a man) is out to explain why this woman is wrong - in order to help women.

replies(1): >>15010914 #
3. Chaebixi ◴[] No.15010553[source]
And the reception to the use of those words indicates the likelihood that the forum can support insightful or deep discussion.
4. smokeyj ◴[] No.15010752[source]
Definitely being ironic. It's a weird place we're in now - not because of any idea being discussed - but because of who is allowed to have an opinion.

But really, I'd be interested in how many women tptacek hires, and how he cultivated such a talent pool.

5. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.15010914[source]
Which of course is impossible because the sex of the person who uses/states an argument is the most substantive part, nothing else matters. Thus dismissing a person's argument based only on their sex is just right.

/s

Calling someone's comment "mansplaining" is the mirror image of asking to see "the man in charge"; it's dismissal based on the sex of the person being addressed.

replies(1): >>15014236 #
6. smokeyj ◴[] No.15014236{3}[source]
Here we have a straight white male telling a woman she's wrong about her experience. I don't subscribe to identity politics, but if you do - there's a fishy smell here.

Of course the logical thing is to evaluate all ideas for their merit. But that's not what we're doing here.

replies(2): >>15014393 #>>15016985 #
7. tptacek ◴[] No.15014393{4}[source]
Yes. I am a straight white male. That is what I'm doing. I would say exactly the same set of things to her face as well. Next question?
replies(1): >>15014515 #
8. smokeyj ◴[] No.15014515{5}[source]
What percentage of your technical hires are female?
replies(1): >>15021051 #
9. pbhjpbhj ◴[] No.15016985{4}[source]
Can't we address it like "here's a person telling a person they're wrong about the inferences they're making based on their reported experiences" and attack anything substantive rather than getting hung up on the sex of each person?

I thought that was what we were trying to do here.

replies(2): >>15020611 #>>15026782 #
10. ◴[] No.15020611{5}[source]
11. tptacek ◴[] No.15021051{6}[source]
I don't know, we haven't hired anyone yet; we're a partnership.
12. smokeyj ◴[] No.15026782{5}[source]
Unfortunately that's not how identity politics works. The whole point is that your sexual anatomy can disqualify you from having an opinion - which really seems to be the crux of this whole debacle. If you're a man who agrees with identity politics then it's because you're intelligent and compassionate. But if you disagree.. Then it's time to check your privilege.