Got my dose of mensplaining last night. The guy's a cook, he was telling the whole table about cookies (the web browsing kind). He said among other things that they hide your IP address. I told him they didn't. He said:" yes, they do" and proceded by repeating his explanation again to me personally.
Once again I tried: " Ok, but they don't hide your IP address". Aaaaand... He explained it again :). This time I was getting slightly annoyed, so I said, "Look, I'm a software ingeneer, no, they don't!" and he still didn't want to believe me. The guy sitting next to him chimmed in: " Indeed they do not, and I am also in IT, they don't have to". He was a bit disgruntled, but didn't really continue arguing after that.

  • 48
    « mansplaining », meh.

    It's just pure idiocy, don't gender it. The guy is an ass, that's it.
  • 4
    what a dumbass.
    I always wonder if people like this refuse to admit they're wrong, or just think they're so much smarter than others that they refuse to listen, even to professionals.
  • 15
    As @karasube said, that dude didn't "mansplain" (that term is misandristic imo), he's just a fucking idiot.
  • 19
    that's not "mansplaining" it's just an arrogant incorrect explanation

    sexism is ew
  • 11
    Got my dose of womansplaining yesterday when our office lady was talking for like half an hour nonstop about me having to sign some papers that i signed in 20 seconds
  • 2
    @Kage a little bit of both, imho.
  • 6
    I've got to admit, that in this case it might not have had a lot to do with gender (becuse I don't know the guy that well), but it did feel like it. But in a lot of cases there is a lot going on behind the story that makes it over obvious that gender really is the issue that the author chooses not to write about. Just saying: "Don't say it's because of gender" when you don't know all that happened is just as blind, if not more so then saying that it was because of gender when it isn't. The bad part is that you're also shutting up the person telling the story. What makes me think it was because of gender was how the guy agreeing with me shut him up, and yes, I do grant that it could have been just that I had another person on my side, but that is not how it felt like to me at that moment.
  • 17
    @lavandysh overall, don't assume something is gender based unless it is obvious that it is gender based.
  • 10
    I misread "the guy's a cock" but after reading the whole thing, maybe my brain is just good at snap judgments.
  • 7
    I just googled the definition of "mansplaining" and I can't believe I don't know this term despite all my sexist jokes. Would the following pass as mainsplaining?

    "Dear, dear, browser cookies are not the same as those cute little sugar tits you stuff your mouth with when you're on your period."

    Is the above example good or am I missing something? I still don't get it.
  • 4
    @irene Even though I generally see your point, I wonna ask: would you give the same advice to an Arabic person who just got selected for a random search at the airport? Or a black person who got pulled over by a cop for no reason? They can't say for sure that those things happen because of a bias either. Sure, there is no guarantee that his assumtpion that I was less knowledgeble then him in computer-related things was genderbased, it just often is, and in that moment it did feel that way to me.
  • 6
    I don’t tend to hang round with people who are shit or on the twat scale, so I guess I have no skills in dealing with this. But what I would do is say, (tongue in cheek)

    “yes they hide your IP, your keys and your wallet, they can also give you a good hiding if you are watching porn”

    That will trigger a laugh from all others and he will be stopped in his tracks from continuing with his shite. Humour is the best form of defence.
  • 8
    @lavandysh statistics. That's all I can say. It can seem racist but statistically more probable that terrorist is an Arab and perpetrator is a black man.
  • 3
    @helloworld Lol, or jokingly say "What do you know? Your place is in the kitchen." Emasculate that motherfu..

    I got carried away, sorry.
  • 2
    @rutee07 Oh you don't get it, but I don't blame you. I don't know single man who could grasp that concept. I am not saying that they cant, just didnt met one, yet. Men know about cars and other stupid things, but when it comes to real knowleage they are clueless 😃
  • 9
    @lavandysh When you make each action about race and sex it starts to be sexist and racist even if it wasnt before.

    I am victim because I stay longer that my female coworker (isnt real job tho)? Or maybe I am just late everyday 😃 Or another things affect that. Why the fuck I have to lift shit and do other things from elementry school and my female mates don't? Why one of my friends was pull over just because he has criminal face?

    Stop making everything about fucking gender and race, sure there are problems, but when you say manspreading rather than being fucking asshole it doesn't help.
  • 6
    @lavandysh im gonna butt in, would you inspect a chicken or a random colorful fish for poison before eating? Statistics are not racist.
  • 5
    Also white people commit tax fraud, you cant exactly pull them over for that
  • 4
    @Omnisus rutee is not a man either 😉
  • 3
    @ganjaman high-five 🖐️
  • 3
    @irene Then my bad 😃 But what you expect from a guy, distinguishing genders is out of my scope for sure 😃
  • 5
    @Omnisus I'm also not a girl either 😉😉
  • 1
    @irene Thanks for mansplaining, I don't ask you about your gender, but I guess you assumed my interests 😃
  • 0
    I'm really surprised how many people are telling me "he didn't do something sexist, this guy's just an asshole". He absolutely isn't! It sounds as if it is perferencial to be an asshole that to do something small and fairly innocent because of sexist reasons. I'm not even calling the guy a sexist or saying he did an asshole thing. Neither of these are true.
  • 11
    To be fair I've been conducting a silent investigation on all those "recents" complaints about

    - mansplaining
    - manterrupting

    1 - woman do the same shit, get over it.

    2 - Creating a term to what a "man do" is just as sexist as any complaint you have.

    3 - the recent feminist wave claim to fight for equality but all I see is misogynist behaviour towards men, especially those that don't 100% agree with everything.

    Not saying you are like that, just saying that if we want to achieve "equality" we really have to understand that in both genders we have human thrash.

    Once we have that we can stop fighting each other and fight the thrash.
  • 5
    @lavandysh So he explain something to you assuming that you will be stupid because of your gender and cant know shit about IT, but you don't call him sexist? Really?

    He isn't maybe asshole but arogant for sure
  • 0
    @Omnisus Yes, really. I will say he was wrong, but I will not generalize one instance of wrong behaviour to his entire being. And we have all at some point in our lives assumed something about a person for stupid reasons. Some of those reasons are sexist, racist, whatever. That does not define us and should not define him unless he does it knowingly, out of willfull ignorance or with bad intent. Or at the very least regularly, and I have only met the guy 3 times and this is the only time I've seen such a thing from him, so don't know.
  • 10
    @lavandysh I don't think you deserve the level of heat these comments carry. You seem reasonable, and maybe people see batshit crazy feminists online and they develop a third wave feminism/pc culture phobia, which I would say, I kinda have as well. And I hope you do too.

    The term mansplaining though IS a sexist term, and it would make more sense if it was replaced with something like downsplained.

    Mansplaining in the traditional sense, assumes that men think women are the lesser gender and need to have explanations dumbed down.

    But I get underestimated and mansplained a lot by men, and I'm male.

    But I'm not gonna deny that there are actual sexist men out there that mansplain.

    Unless you're 100% sure someone is sexist, don't assume that, assume they are just assholes.

    People like me don't like this term because we might get easily targeted because something we said might have sounded sexist.
  • 6
    @lavandysh When you behave as asshole once doesnt mean that he/she is asshole all the time. For me it is easier to say "that was sexist" rather than "that was asshole behaviour", but you are sexist/asshole both are equally natural to say.

    People are mad when if there man and woman involved and woman is victim it is about sex. Also as @hell point out when you divide assholes as assholes and manholes it is part of problem and force people to think about sex when it isnt a factor at all
  • 3
    @lavandysh you've said he was mansplaining which is a sexist thing. So you've accused him in conducting an act of sexism. You cannot deny that as it is clearly in your post.
  • 1
    @irene I'm not. I'm saying committing one small act of sexism does not make you a sexist or an asshole.
  • 0
    About the term "mansplain":

    Yes, women absolutely do this too, no one is refuting that. But don't know of a gender neutral term for "the explanation of something by a person of a different gender, in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing because of biases about the other gender". I would like to have such a word.

    There is however, according to me, a difference between "mansplain" and "womansplain", and that is the fields they mostly portrain to. "Womansplain" for example often portains to emotions, chores, children,... While "mansplaining" often portains to technology, science, politics... In the moddern business world these fields are particularly important. That makes it worse.Women are more often ignored, interrupted,... in politics, science and the business world (not all women, yes).There are statistics on this

    Is it bad to have a term specifficly for men and not one for women though? I'm convinced a term for women will follow, like with most gender-speciffic words
  • 7
    @lavandysh no one said that guy is overall a douchebag instead of being a douchebag at that particular time.

    There are no hints to his behavior being sexist except your labeling it as "mansplaining". It seems no more than an arrogant and ignorant behavior and nothing else.
  • 7
    @lavandysh don't use <gender>splain and you won't be incorrect. Address issues by the correct names: arrogance and sexism. Not by labels created for hate labeling.
  • 2
    @lavandysh The only time I would accept the term "mansplain" is if a man tried to tell you that he knows how your gender-specific body parts work better than you yourself do. In any other case, it doesn't really make a difference if it's a man or a woman, does it?
  • 4
    Aside from that term, good rant.
  • 2
    @filthyranter Thank you, honestly, thank you
  • 1
    @irene you spoiled it...
    Aaaargh I was waiting for op to revolt and then get to know that "he" is not a man
  • 4
    Well let me "mansplain". That is a good rant


    I agree with irene, filthyranter and more
    I'm happy that dev community is not that affected by this modern sexism shit
  • 3
    @lavandysh Sexism is when you put sex as factor when it isnt. You put sex as factor of this guy arogancy and patrionizing tone, but it was really matter of sex? Sounds like guy shut up after secons person told him.

    People interupt because they don't give a fuck what you want to tell. If someone only interupts one of genders it is both sexist and rude, but it isnt sexist when apllies to both.
  • 4
    > statistics.

    FX [ Nods in agreement. ]

    I wonder what the term is for when adults do the same with children ?

    Statistically speaking children are not going to be as experienced as adults, and therefore less likely to know the correct answer to a problem.

    So when an adult talks down to a child, is that childsplaining ?

    Is it also that if another child does it ?

    Is it still it if a younger child does it to an older child ?

    What if the age of a child is different in other countries, eg. if a 15 year old calls a 18 year old out on a problem, is it the same in all countries, even those who say childhood stops at 17 rather than 18 ?

    What if the person being splained is of indeterminable gender, is there a term for that ?
  • 5
    Jesus. I come here on devrant to escape from SJW bullshit and then I read this. As other users mentioned above it is not "mansplaining". Just an arrogant fuck. Oh, and that word, mansplaining, does not exists. Just a term from SJW to accuse other people if they do something they don't like.
    (Not in your case. That guy was clearly arrogant and asshole. Just he didn't want to admit he was wrong. That's all. Everyone can be like that. Be it gender male, female, apache helicopter or whatever gender SJW seems to invent now)
  • 2
    > it is not "mansplaining"

    I think it most likely is, but I'm not allowed to explain why. (Its illegal in my country to explain !)

    - - -

    The internet, where you have the freedom to say what your countries laws say you can..

    - - -
  • 1
    > There are no hints to his behavior being sexist

    I saw a hint when the guy sitting next to him chimmed in.

    If it had been a woman sitting next to him and they had chimmed in, and then the cook shut up, I'd say it was less likely they was being sexist. (Baring in mind, if they are sitting next to them, they might fancy them and they might just be quiet to further their aims to sleep with said person..)
  • 2
    @Nanos even if the other guy answered does not mean that the first was sexist. Just arrogant and unknowledgeable in this case.

    Or was it a sarcasm? 🤔
  • 1

    True, doesn't mean, but its all probabilities, and based on the limited available evidence, I'd say its more likely was sexist than wasn't.

    Unfortunately I can't discuss what the term 'sexist' means, or doesn't mean, or should mean.

    It's an interesting subject, which I'm sure ancient civilisations had to wrestle with, and I wish I could say more on the subject.

    Is there anyplace on the web where true free speech can be spoken ?
  • 1
    @Nanos well, I'm using the maxima: "Don't explain something by evil intent if it can be explained by stupidity." 😁
  • 0

    I think you are missing a third option of good intentions..
  • 1
    @Nanos it equals stupidity.
  • 1
    @Nanos I mean that if "good intentions" led to harm then those intentions were stupid.
  • 0
    @irene >"Don't explain something by evil intent if it can be explained by stupidity."

    I think herein lies the problem, I don't think all sexism is with evil intent or stupidity. Although I do think it's bad in the grand scheme of things.

    I think things like opening a door for a female just because she is a she is sexist, but not necessarly wrong, stupid and bad. Same with women making sure their girls always look beautiful: sexist: yes, with evil intent or stupidity: not so much.

    I don't think this guy conciously understood what he was doing. I think it's a subconcious bias, but I do think it was gender based.

    And I actually think in this case "sexism" falls under your definition of stupidity, not evil intent.

    And we never fully know what's going to come from our actions, I surely didn't when I posted this this morning. Bad outcomes do not always make our actions stupid.
  • 2
    @lavandysh doing something nice for a female because it's female is sexist and stupid. Doing something nice because of interest in that person or friendliness is not sexist.
  • 3
    @Nanos I was on bunch of lectures about medicinal marijuana and one of presenters said percentage point, but mean percentage. In that case it was huge difference +/-10% or +/-50%. I stood up and told that she is wrong, but other presenter backed up first one so I said sorry and sit down. I was right, she wasn't and I shut up after second person opinion not because it was he, but because it was possibility that I messed something up.

    BTW in which country you couldn't discuss/explain that thing?
  • 1

    I can't say which county for fear of saying !

    Reminds me of a friend of mine in Mexico who was telling us they couldn't talk about politics at all, because its against the law for foreigners to do so there !

    They also can't own waterside property either, who knew that !
  • 4
    > I stood up and told that xxxxx is wrong

    I remember doing that in a management meeting once, the person kept quoting figures way different to what was actually written in a report they was quoting from.

    I knew because I'd got a photocopy of that report an hour beforehand. :-)

    Once I mentioned I had a copy, they suddenly stopped quoting the wrong figures..

    The wrong figures made management look better..
  • 2
    When someone uses the term "mensplaining" I immediately assume they are retarded.
  • 1
    @ObiSwagKenobi Why thank you for that, but I fear it says more about how judgemental you are then about me. Seriously, people, we are not ok with mensplaning, but fine with calling people retards?
  • 1
    @rantalicious Thank you verymuch for the term "laysplaining"
  • 1
    @rantalicious Well, at least something good came out of that story, I was looking for a better term, thanks.
  • 3
    For Darwin's sake we are all humans, when I hear "mansplain" I get fucked in my mind as a man.

    A fucking idiot who happens to be a man doesn't have a man-enabled or man-caused idiotism.

    Stop acting like men and women are a different species, we are *the* human mammal.
  • 2
    @rantbook to be fair, men and women DO have substantial physiological differences beyond the genitalia shape.
  • 0
    @rantbook Did anyone call men idiots? No one did. The definition of the term itself doesn't imply idiocy, but I can understand if you have bad connotations with the word.

    So don't tell us to stop something we're not doing
  • 2
    > that was the end of it.

    You may well find that isn't the end of it, and someone will stab you in the back later on because you dared to speak up.
  • 4
    I see the chocolate ration has gone up..
  • 2
    Can we address the hiddeb elephant in the room tho?

    « Devsplaining », what are we going to do about it?
  • 1
    @karasube haha

    By the way I just hate this splaining terminology.

    Another point in the joke. If the person in a professional, it shouldn't be at all <something>splaining. Although this is not the case here
  • 2
    Should have just raised your eyebrow and said "stick to your cookies and I'll stick to mine"🤣
  • 4
    @lavandysh I think what everybody is trying to explain is that there are a number of reasons the guy could’ve had that attitude towards you. Age for instance, this could’ve been applicable as he could’ve assumed you were inexperienced. Your appearance as well, if your pretty people simply assume your dumb regardless of your gender.
    Really when it comes down to it the only way to determine what someone’s motivation for being condescending is if they use a sexist term in the process of doing it. Even then you have to determine whether they’re not just simply applying the first derogatory term they could think of because a lot of the ppl in question aren’t exactly the most creative with their wordplay 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • 2
    I agree. I think appearance has more to do with it and gender is only part of that. People also recognize your face shape, other facial features, and body language.

    I experience a few difference in treatment since I'm often the only female in the team. One time, the client asked about something technical, I answered him but he didn't accept my answer so my other team mate (who happens to be male) answered him and the client accepted it. We were both confused because we said the same thing but my first thought was maybe the client was looking for a confirmation or something, like the guy in OP's story. It's entirely possible that if the roles were reversed and OP's friend answered the cook first, he wouldn't believe it and when OP chimes in, he finally would. All because it's two against one, they are both in the IT field, and he's a cook.
  • 1
    @M1sf3t Yes, I have already agreed with that point above. My personal belief is that it was all of the above: age, appearance and gender. But that gender is a part of it, also because it is a part of appearance. And I think I said in my very first comment that I cannot be sure what goes on in that guys mind. But neither can anyone else writing a rant about anyone using other terms about people like bitch, idiot, retard... Somehow they don't have to explain themselves. And a lot of everyday words are way more sexist, racist,...
    I used the word according to its dictionary definition without knowing all the bad feelings people had about it. But the dictionary definition doesn't say that gender is the main factor or that it's all about gender or anything similar. Just that gender is a factor. And it doesn't say all men do it. But is it really so offensive to think that some do in some situations and not tell people who were actually there that it must have been something else?
  • 0
    @lavandysh if something mentions gender it IS about gender. Isn't it obvious?
  • 0
    @irene No, actually: No, actually: boytoy, madman, bithching, mothering, mankind... All gendered or mention gender
  • 0
    @irene Also interesting: https://theguardian.com/commentisfr...
    And I have not even gotten to expressions
    All the examples I mention are borderline sexist with intent. There are way more neutral words like headmaster, policeman, nomansland,...
  • 2
    @lavandysh some of that is just what you get when you bring up gender or race around here, I wouldn't take it too personally. For as many assholes as there are that aren't creative enough to come up with a better derogoritory term to use, you have just as many idiots that aren't clever enough to come up with a better excuse for not achieving something.

    In any case, its bad practice to use such terms anyway. Generally when you publicly bitch about something its to vent your frustrations sure, but when you do you're usually looking for people to relate to them and give you some positive feedback to help you work the situation out. Yet you when you use a term like mansplaining then you've unnecessarily eliminated better than half the group. You also seemed to have unnecessarily triggered a few as well, I would assume because of their previous experiences with dealing with term. Maybe even having to deal with someone wrongly accusing them of doing it?
  • 1
    @lavandysh It starts to be boring. Language reflects fucktone of our history if you want so or not. Women was percive as weaker, more emotional and so on, but there is second side when you are seen as strong men? Sounds great, heh? Maybe when you cant cry, when your realtionship falls apart because you cant express what you feel or maybe when only acceptable way is anger?

    I am strongly with equity and discrimination burn me from inside, but I don't want to live in society where thinking about opression is opression itself. I take care about my girl and my flat, make breakfast each day and it is ok, I am with both hands for it. Live together and judge by actions not gender or skin or asshole color.

    Manspreading and mansplaining is modern word built with people which fight against sexist words. Fighting against sexism with sexism. I wish we will dont give a shit about sex or skin as we dont give about eye or how toes are aranged
  • 2
    @Omnisus I'm sorry, but I could not understand a lot of what you mean, but if it's getting boring for you, then why are you stoking the fire with new comments?
    I am against sexism against both males and females, please do not imply I'm not. (Although that implication might be because I did not understand your words correctly)
  • 1
    @lavandysh Yeah my bad English, sorry for that 😃 I am not accusing you about sexism in any way. Maybe I shouldn't write last one indeed 😃 Have a nice day and weekend
  • 2
    @lavandysh Languages change all the time just by the use of it. A language itself cannot be sexist, unless it would consist only of sexist words. There will always be words with bad meanings or bad history. We can't undo them.
    Why does everything has to be pure nowadays?
    I find it rather relieving to make jokes about everything. Jews, Blacks, Whites, Chinese, myself, gays, heteros, smelly feet fetish people, priests, my bank account, crippling depression, ...
    Why can't people just get over the fact that being alife means great pain and great joy at the same time? People are fucking assholes or lovely or stupid. It's just how life works.
    We are just moving piles of cells which are controlled by pseudo-random stupid electrical shocks.
    How about we try to not make everything about sex or race?
    How about we start to see life more in a realistic perspective?

    @Omnisus Preach! 🙏
  • 1
    @Omnisus Ok, sorry I misunderstood, then. You too
  • 0
    Hi, @PonySlaystation

    >Why does everything has to be pure nowadays?

    I'm actually the person under fire here because I said "mansplaning".

    That word was actually named word of the year by the New York Times in 2010, but here we are today with some people calling me a sexist or retard for daring to use it. Not sure you meant to address that to me? I'm not the advocate of political correctness on a Rant site, here.

    But I do disagree on this: I do think elements of aa language can be sexist.
  • 3
    @lavandysh It was not at all directed to you. Just general statements.
    I can see that you feel under fire, but nobody is actually attacking you.

    Just because a newspaper selected a word "word of the year" does not make it "word of the year of the world". The NYT is just a newspaper and the selection process of the word cannot be guaranteed as unbiased.
    Considering all that and my own bias, I personally don't regard it as worthy of such an honor.
    Mansplaining (just as womansplaining) is a made up word by (in my opinion) radical people who have to make everything about gender.
    I dislike both words because it implies sexist behaviour where it is not strictly proven.
    I am absolutely confident that both words are misused in by far most cases, where a simple "condecending" or "arrogant" would have been way more precise. (Just as in your rant I think)
  • 2
    @lavandysh I didn't call you retarded, I merely assumed that you are.

    Please don't get me wrong, you might as well be the most intelligent being in the whole universe.

    But as long as you're using stupid terms like 'mensplaining' in a misandristic, pseudo-intellectualistic manner you do seem like a retard.
  • 0
    @ObiSwagKenobi I'm gonna use someone else's words to anwser: https://villainesse.com/no-filter/...
  • 2
    @lavandysh I almost stopped reading at "We know that using misogynistic, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, racist, and xenophobic language is never OK. So why are we so quick to call someone or something “retarded?”" but I read the whole article, trying to find something meaningful in there.

    My 2 points:
    Point 1:
    You know perfectly well that in that context the word "retarded" is interpreted like "stupid", so please a) stop being offended by everything b) stop trying to find things to be offended by.

    Point 2:
    Oh and I completely disagree - not calling someone 'retarded' won't make the world a better place. People are still dying on holy wars, children are still hungry. Thats a small lie people say to themselves to make them feel less guilty for not actually making a difference
  • 0
    @ObiSwagKenobi There is problem with using words adressing mental illnesses to offend someone, because in a lot of societies we have poor mental health, because people feel offended when you say that they may have mental problems and don't go to doctor and take medication.

    I am not sure tho, how strictly it is connected to this words. Maybe it is just matter of tabu
  • 1
    @ObiSwagKenobi @Omnisus The problem is deeper then that, you are equating having mental illness with being an idiot. That seriously hurts people with mental illnesses and their families. I know from personal experience, a close relative of mine has a bad case of mental illness and his diagnosis is used as an insult at his school. Good luck explaining to your kid that he's different, but that that's fine if that is the only thing he associates with his mental illness is a curse word and idiocy.

    And knowing that you mean it in a different way changes nothing, only makes it worse.

    Poor mental health is not something you have to be ashamed about, sometimes it even makes us better people.
  • 2
    @lavandysh idiocy is a mental illness as well 🙃 you've played yourself
  • 0
    @irene Yes, but that definition of idiocy has not been used for centuries, now. I don't think anyone takes offence to that one.
  • 0
    @lavandysh but it is still a legit diagnosis so it is incorrect to use by your definition
  • 1
    @irene As far as I know it has been absolete in psychology for years, and I can't find anything. Can you give a reference?
  • 0
    @lavandysh even if it is obsolete it is still a diagnostic term
  • 1
    @irene Come on, you know there is a difference and you're just arguing for the sake of it. Very few people nowadays associate idiocy with any mental illness. But that association between retard and mental illness is still very strong in our language.

    It's the same thing as with why it's ok to call a woman a madam, but not a prostitute.
  • 1
    @irene I highly doubt that.
  • 1
    @lavandysh there is a difference but there's also a legacy to which I can stick just for the sake of being an asshole 🙃
  • 1
    @irene Well, at least you're honest about it.
  • 0
    @lavandysh it's just if you're going to be technical with the exact meaning of terms then you should be fully exact and not dismissing ones but accepting other. It irks me a bit when someone begin being dismissal because of some terms but using other terms in the same way as the judged one was.
  • 1
    And btw, I really should learn to spellcheck before I post, I appologise for all the spelling mistakes throughout this conversation to all. I was emotional and trying to write quickly, but dear god, some of these mistakes are horrible! Sorry
  • 1
    @irene I'm sorry, but unlike you I don't feel like arguing right now. I'm not sure if you mean "idiocy" or "mansplaining".

    If you mean the former, I'm sure you are not serious.

    If you mean the latter, I wonna ask again: if they are both just as bad to you, why did you spend hours telling me how wrong I am, but didn't bother giving @ObiSwagKenobi even one comment when he "assumed" that I was a retard?

    Does that not irk you?
  • 1
    And then I misspelled apologize in my apology. Once again sorry. I'm gonna stop apologizing now, cause it's getting annoying
  • 1
    FX [ Tries to catch up on all that was said.. ]

    FX [ Notices mention of the word 'retard'.. ]

    I'm reminded when I was head of PR someplace (I was headhunted in case anyone is curious..) and usually I engaged with the public I thought quite well.

    One day someone was being particularly, stupid.

    So I called them I thought a fairly politically safe word 'an idiot'.

    (Kinda like the time I called someone at a previous job 'lazy', they complained but I didn't get the sack!")

    I was asked to resign my position or be fired..

    I hate to think what would have happened if I'd used that other word..
  • 1
    Somehow I'm reminded of:


    > Idiocracy - Trailer
  • 0
    @Nanos to be fair, calling anyone idiot is not professional at all.
  • 0

    What word should I have used ?
  • 0
    @Nanos none. Insulting won't solve the professional problem. Though I think it would be fair to use term "incompetent"
  • 1

    I was trying not to be insulting. :-)

    I wanted to point out in a simple uncomplicated manner that what they was saying was wrong, and that it was wrong because they was too stupid to notice that themselves, eg. incapable of understanding.

    "incompetent' is an interesting choice of word to use instead, I'm not entirely sure what kind of message that would give to someone.

    I think that word would intend to indicate the person is uneducated about the issue.

    Where as I thought the person was not able to be educated, and this needed pointing out without a lengthy use of words.

    To go beyond just saying they was wrong, but to explain why they was wrong.

    Perhaps 'incapable of understanding' ?

    Rather ironic that one of the reasons I was hired was because of my no-nonsense attitude towards speaking about things. :-)

    Though.. they also didn't like me mentioning how they squandered company money on a holiday..

    I mean management meeting. :-)
  • 0
    @Nanos if they are incapable of understanding some professional thing then they are incompetent by definition. Isn't it?
  • 0

    No. :-)

    I'd call a kid at school incompetent if they didn't know how to do some maths for example.

    To me that would mean they could learn it, they just don't currently know it.

    But if someone couldn't get a first place gold medal, would they be incompetent ?

    I think the use of words can be complicated.

    Different people from different cultures, or genders, can view their understanding of the exact same word differently.

    This is why when being questioned about where you was last night by your partner, yes and no answers are best. :-)

    Trying to explain things, just digs you deeper into the hole..

    "Oh you mean you was !"

    "No I didn't mean that !"
  • 2
    I notice there are several different discussions at play here.

    Only some of which I'm legally allowed to be part of. :-)

    So.. was I incompetent for not knowing how to say in public person X was stupid in a politically correct manner ?

    Or was the company that hired me, knowing full well my record for being a bit Plain English like when it came to talking about things ?

    Or maybe we both was. :-)

    I'm happy to except that I was !

    But can I learn to be more professional. :-)

    I dunno, after all, it doesn't really hurt Elon does it..
  • 1
    @Nanos Korean?
  • 1
    @gitlog @Nanos , not that bad. But I believe middle eastern. Libya, Iran, Pakistan or some other country. I believe these countries have strict laws.
  • 0
    @ColdFore Not Pakistan I believe.
  • 2
    @irene sorry I meant in the realm of idiotism specifically that both have an equal chance at it :)

    Otherwise, 100% agree. Like for ex., under the bell curve (within norm. dist.), female brains are better at symbolic logic & algebra and male brains do better at rotating 3d shapes and materializing 3d space in their head. Of course allow for generalizations even in those examples.
  • 1
    @lavandysh @lavandysh what you have said makes no sense at all, seems hopeless to even explain.

    You tell me that no one said man are idiots, when have I said that someone has? Then you tell me not to tell others to stop doing something that they aren't doing, even though my comment isn't saying that anyone has... neither it has implied "mansplaining" to have anything to do with "idiotism". My comment, if read using understanding and comprehension, is saying "men and women have an equal chance at acting like the OP".
  • 0
    @rantbook Here are a few quotes from what you said: "man-enabled or man-caused idiotism" and "Stop acting like men and women are a different species"

    And you were the first person in this thread to mention "idiotism".

    Now, if you want to take back these words and replace them with what you actually meant, that's fine by me. And I too urge you te read my comments using understanding and comprehension.

    I however do not think that in this conversation, portraying to this subject (or subjects like cars, action movies,...) men and women have an equal chance at acting like the OP. But if you look at all conversations about everything, than maybe, but I would like some scientiffic research about it, since it is relevant in our society right now and we are pretty much all basing ourselves on personal experiences. As I have already stated before your comment, I also believe that overal (in all conversations in western societies) the totals will be similar, but the toppics will be different.
  • 0
    @hell You've mentioned "manterrupting", I'm afraid that science says that men interrupt women 33% more often in a 1-on-1 conversation then when they spoke with other men. Other studies found this also happened in the Supreme Court (65.9 percent of all interruptions are directed at the 3 female justices) and with female doctors by their patients.

    And I've never personally seen these "man-" words as "what a man does" or "all men". We've got lots of gendered words in our language, we don't interpret most others as "all man" or "what a man does" or... But yes, some people did use this word this way, but that was not the original intent or meaning of the word. And I was not aware of that before I used it in this post. The word was actually not created for hate labeling, but to describe this thing that happens to a lot of women. If you hate the distored word, give us a new one, don' dismiss what it stood for.

    Source: https://advisory.com/daily-briefing...
  • 0
    @hell PS: the last sentence was meant generally, not at you personally
  • 1
    @lavandysh I read the article title and came here to say one thing:

    If the topic is always equality how come all the articles are "man do x to women" and not "what we do to the opposite gender" and address statistics to both sides?
  • 1
    @hell Yes, I know the titles of the articles or the way they are written are often subjective because that sells better. It's hard to find objective articles on any subject, nowadays, but that's the fault of journalism, not science. The study itself is very objective and simply empiric (they let people talk and counted). I wanted to share the study descriptions.
  • 0
    OK, I read the article, it addresses the opposite but somehow it has a biased feeling, I might be wrong but it is what I felt reading it.
  • 1
    "3. Everyone should remember that different people have different styles of communication—and interruptions generally aren't "meant to be personal," Shore writes. Make an effort to learn about how others communicate."

    I like this bit.

    Man and woman are different, perhaps the cause for those "directed" interruptions is due to the fact that we communicate differently too. In my case I tend to be the more objective I can and I really get annoyed by people that can't so I usually try to solve this is conversations and usually I get myself doing it with woman.

    The problem is saying "hey you are interrupting me because I'm a woman" instead of "hey why are you interrupting me?"

    If you have a premise and analyse the data with that in mind, your conclusions will be biased.

  • 2
    @lavandysh or if you mumble out something to the affect of "interrupting you are" then your going to find yourself getting interrupted quite a bit more frequently whether you are a male or a female.

    My apologies ladies, I realize I am ironically butting in here, but as a male that frequently finds himself being included in that percentage of male frequently getting interrupted, I somehow felt I should possibly be included in this discussion 🙃
  • 0
    @hell I'm surprised you assume the scientists had a bias when they did the study just because these journalists did. That doesn't seem objective to me.

    As far as I know, most experiments start with formulating a hypothesis. So almost all science has a "preconcieved notion of what the data might be". The entire point is to test it and most go through great lengths to do so objectivly if there is a hint of a bias for example by identifying the "interruptions" from a transscript without names.

    I'm not sure where their bias could have influenced the study? In identifying what an interruption is or in counting? In a half-decent experiment one formulates an objective definition of an interruption to identify it beforehand. They rarely just let someone decide based on their personal feelings. And it's hard to count subjectively.

    If you want to be completely objective you would have to read the publications of these experiments, but I assumed you wouldn't wonna do that, and neither do I.
  • 0
    @M1sf3t I don't see how mumbling "interrupting you are" increasing interruptions is relevant to the fact that men interrupt more often then women? Am I missing your point or do you want to say that women more often complain about being interrupted?

    Although, in and of itself it is an interesting observation.
  • 4
    @lavandysh men and women behave differently because men and women are different inherently. Period.
  • 0
    @irene The point is one of those differences you mention is: Men interrupt women more often and that at times has bad consequences.

    I don't wonna get into if the difference is inherent to nature or nurture. But some people deny this difference or don't want people pointing it out or adjusting social behavior and norms to make sure the difference becomes smaller and has less bad consequences.
  • 0
    @irene But only in a general sense, women individually can fight for dominance in a conversation just as well as a man can but its a behavioral thing and as @hell said it can be as simple as a matter of your word play. If you consider how long society was advancing in the opposite direction due mostly to issues surrounding child birth, most families still don't even understand that when they teach their daughter to "speak like a lady" that they are setting them up to be less confrontational. Then again some families do and just want their daughters to grow up and take the "traditional" role.
  • 2
    This is the longest gangbang I've ever seen.
  • 1
    @lavandysh but pointing it out and assuming are two different things. Thats what I was attempting to explain earlier, people are just as sensitive to the issue of being wrongly accused of something as you are actually having it happen to you so its better to just not got there unless you absolutely have to use it to explain the situation to others.
  • 1
    @lavandysh sorry i missed the other comment, I was saying that how you word your phrases and sentences, along with the projection and tone of you voice will account for how the other person will respond to you. If they are of the dominant personality type, they will take advantage no matter what your sex. Or their sex for that matter, some of you women thrive in the dominant role. Some of you want to but you don't quite maneuver as well as the others and you end up in the same boat with quite a few of the male population, creating a somewhat resentfulness because while y'all can easily cop out to just simply being a woman, we have to excuse ourselves for other reasons. Or not even try. One of the reasons I left the last job I was at was because I had to run everything by a manager that didn't understand the first thing about what I was trying to fix and inevitably made me go get someone else to come explain it to him before he would let me touch anything.....
  • 0
    which would've been the case with you guys possibly as well until you managed to convince him that you knew what you were doing but he'd at least have hit the intercom button to buzz them into the office rather than make me go track them down.
  • 1
    @rutee07 i was wondering when you would pop up again. I still haven't managed to catch all the way up, I just noticed the last bit was a similar to a conversation I had with some yesterday
  • 0
    @lavandysh difference is inherent by both nature and nurture. And no, difference should not be made smaller.
  • 2
    @M1sf3t The thread is pretty long, I haven't read all of it yet. I don't even know what input I can give since I can't relate so I do what I do best - post porn comments from time to time.
  • 0
    @irene You don't think that the female justices of the supreme court being interrupted way more often then their male counterparts should be fixed?
  • 2
    @lavandysh I'll remind you that men receive larger sentences in court. Men have virtually no rights in parental court. Men receive a lot of harsh treatment because they are indeed men.

    Stop acting like women get all the shit from life, when it's definitely not true.
  • 0
    @irene Yes, that is true. That is bad and we should fix that as well. I definetly don't believe that only women get to deal with sexism. It's just this conversation is mostly about words where the ones in the wrong are men.
  • 1
    @lavandysh but how do you propose to fix it? follow the route of civil rights movements in the sixties and ensure that all the females on the panel get ample opportunity to speak per male voice? How far has that type of thinking got the black community as a whole in the past 50 years? How bout just not fix the system itself so that its mandatory for everyone to get an opportunity to speak and debate so that no one is talking over another?
  • 2
    @rutee07 I fucking love you so much haoheuhahoeuhaheu
  • 1
    @rutee07 wanna the same long gang bang yourself? 😏
  • 2
    @hell You already know how to prove it. ;)
  • 0
    @irene But to get back to the speciffic story. A man switched names with his female collegue in emails and describes what he thought was the difference in how people treated him.

  • 3
    @irene I just came here to watch and critique if the angles are all good. I got promoted to porn director.
  • 2
  • 1
    @lavandysh one precedent of some old fart being old fart.

    As I've said many times before on this platform, gender equality is possible if there's only one gender. If there are more then equality is theoretically impossible at all.

    At my position I've got several occasions working with women, and I can't say that I've treated them any different than men. But that could be caused by me personal quirk: I inherently dehumanize people while doing business with them, they are functions while doing their jobs, and it's not important which genitalia set that function has. (A pretty human doing a job is nice to watch, but that's pretty much irrelevant to result.)
  • 0
    @M1sf3t I don't have a plan.

    I'm gonna reply to your comment about assumptions later if this thread doesn't get to long for me to handle all the comments again, but the gist is this: every time you use a bad word to describe someone you are making assumptions about them. Most of them are false. And the point of devrant isn't to give an objective account of what happened, but to rant
  • 0
    @irene I think a big part of the thing we're discussing here is subconcious bias. I don't think the guy in my original rant conciously thought: "hey, this is a woman!"

    I don't know you, but it seems like a fair assumption that there are some differences in how you treat men and women, but you don't know about them.
  • 0
    @rutee07 Thanks (sarcastic) for all the gangbang jokes. Didn't mind one, but sure am feeling dirty now.

    Not gonna anwser to anyone for a couple of hours cause I wonna concentrate, so go ahead and make some more.
  • 0
    @lavandysh I am more friendly and forgiving to women overall, because they are indeed women. I notice that and I'm aware of that.
  • 0
    @irene And about "one old fart". Not sure if you read till the end, they did that for a week with different clients
  • 0
    @hell Just in case you've got more time then I do, here's the original article of the study: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f9...

    I might read it later myself. I just skimmed it, and I see that they actually tested how gender affects different things in language: Personal pronouns, Self-references, Negations, Intensive adverbs, Hedges, Tag questions, Dependent clauses, Fillers/filled pauses, Interruptions and Justifiers. With a lot of these they found no correlation, but "when speaking with a female, participants interrupted more and used more dependent clauses than when speaking with a male". They did use transcripts and software to analyse them, and then for every mistake 2 people had to be in agreement to correct it.

    Honestly, I think you've got a strong cognitive bias, because of the way you immediatly said: "yeah, but those scientists were probably biased". Professionals know what they're doing.
  • 1
    @lavandysh I never said the scientists were biased, I said the article felt biased.

    Classical womanstanding
  • 0
    @hell Quote: " If you have a premise and analyse the data with that in mind, your conclusions will be biased."
  • 0
    @hell The scientists are the ones analysing and drawing conclusions, although, now that I've reread your statement I might have misunderstood. Maybe you meant the interpretation of the fact that men interrupt more? And that that might have a different cause? In that case: maybe, but it still is behaviour more often seen in men, and a word with the meaning of "manterrupting" would still be useful. Even if there is a different cause.
  • 0
    @hell And your comment slightly implied that women are less often objective in conversations
  • 2
    @lavandysh probably because generally women are less objective? 🤔
  • 1
    FX [ Tries to think of an analogy.. ]

    26 people in a room with high shelves.

    Person A is short.

    Persons C to Z are tall.

    New person comes into the room without a ladder, who are they going to ask to reach the top shelf ?

    Being as I used to work in a place like that, if there wasn't a ladder around, you learned to climb the shelves (Somewhat unsafe..), or you would go and find a ladder. (Which may require you to repair it first..)

    That doesn't mean person A couldn't get the item off the top shelf, just they they didn't appear suitable at first glance, and it saves you having ladders to hand if you just choose tall people for such duties..

    So, how do we make this better, always go armed with a ladder in case someone is short ?

    Lower the height of the shelves so everyone can reach..

    FX [ Wonders what you do with all that space space below the ceiling.. ]

    Maybe its a glass ceiling. :-)
  • 3
    @lavandysh These are just facts of life. Same as men were made to be physically stronger than women. Now, does that mean that every man on the planet is physically stronger than all women? Hell no. I know a few females who can beat the shit out of many men.

    Same as women were made to be more sensitive and emotionally attached than men yet I know a lot of men who are sensitive and needy as sin and a few heartless women who wouldn't care for their husbands and children.

    Women in general are in fact less objective than men. Same reason why in certain fields, you will find less women. This does not mean that all women have no capacity to be objective or rational and this does not mean that all men are objective. It's all about the initial build and what evolution has dictated would work.

    I'm a woman and I'm aware of all these facts. I don't feel oppressed when a man tries to talk down to me because I don't have such insecurity and I don't feel inferior to anybody for being a woman.
  • 0
    @rutee07 @irene Ok, ignoring the fact that those statement are worse then my use of mansplaining, let's look at the science.Even though it's hard to find such a study about gender and objectivism nowadays (in part because this is an old argument a lot of sexists have used, for example for keeping women out of medical schools and most people consider it closed) there have been studies done about it.The advertisement industry wanted to know if they should target gendered advertisements objectively or subjectively.The study is called "Gender differences in information processing strategies: an empirical test of the selectivity model in advertising response".And they found that women are just as objective then men when making choices.To be precise:"Females are comprehensive information processors who consider both subjective and objective product attributes and respond to subtle cues. Males are selective information processors who tend to use heuristics processing and miss subtle cues. "
  • 1
    That makes me think of:


    > Hjernevask (Brainwash) 1-7: The Gender

    > Equality Paradox [ENG Sub / Documentary]

    Related link:


    > 'A gender equality paradox': Countries

    > with more gender equality have fewer

    > female STEM grads

    Which also reminds me of when I wanted to study at college, for some reason it was a closely guarded secret which courses had the most men or women on them.

    They no longer published such figures (Universities did..), so I couldn't choose a course where I'd there would be lots of women and few men.

    Interestingly several courses I did do, I met women who only went for the first few lessons because they was looking for courses with lots of men on !
  • 0
    I'm also reminded how it can be difficult to tell gender online.

    Having known people for 20+ years online, but not known their gender (Or height, age/etc.) when we have bumped into each other in the real world, it has been interesting at times to find out that short fat balding middle aged plumber sounding guy isn't after all, or that young sounding gentlemen is actually twice your age !
  • 0
    @rutee07 @irene To recite the study in my own words: women use both subjectivity and objectivity to make decissions, men mostly use past expiriences to make decissions. Also: when there is little risk involved women give objectivity and subjectivity the same importance, but if the decission involves greater risk (in this case just more money) women adjust their model and become more objective. For men there is no difference if the risk is higher or lower, they use the same level of objectivity.
    If you wonna go really technical: for low risk the "objectivity" numbers are slightly lower then for the males, and for higher risks they are slightly higher.
    So I guess we are just a little less objective when it doesn't matter, but are a little more objective when it does.
  • 0
    Wauw, sorry, two comments while I was writing the second half
  • 1
    @Nanos Yeah, I've heard Jordan Peeterson talk about it, don't have an explanation for it.
  • 0
    Also about the study: I'm well aware that this study only focuses on decission making, and that there might be other aspects of objectivity. If you want to say that women perform worse in one of those: try to prove it with another study.
  • 1
    I'm looking forward to studying human gender behavioural differences in computer games, though I wonder what the error rate will be between people being biologically gender X and saying instead they are gender Y..
  • 0

    I hadn't heard of Jordan before.

    FX [ Goes to google name. ]
  • 3
    You know, this thread keeps increasing at the rate it is, I'm gonna have to start using the ++'s to bookmark the position I've managed to catch up too 🙄
  • 3
    @M1sf3t The topic keeps getting segwayed. We can be talking about a specific example then it will be broadened out to avoid defeat. This is no longer to learn from mistakes or to come into agreement with anything, it's all about winning and who would be the one with the last to say regardless how senseless the argument is.

    This is why I kept away from this thread when the debating began. It's been here for several days, several commenters have provided their input, and nothing is learned.

    At this point, I will assume that some people never learn because they don't want to. It's always an easy escape to play the victim all the time. I'm unsubscribing to this thread and yes, no one is forcing me to be here.
  • 0
    @rantalicious tags? 🤷🏻‍♂️
  • 0
    @rantalicious I hope you're joking. If not, you're a perfect example of what I'm referring to. This thread will go on without me so obviously, I wouldn't be the last one to comment here.
  • 0
    @rantalicious Hahaha. Lol. You can mute the notifications with the "..." shit on the top right.
  • 4
    @rantalicious Looks like you're fucked. Sorry, man. It was nice meeting you. Have fun in the torture chamber.

    *jumps off the roof alone*
  • 0
    @lavandysh ok so this got delayed but I was attempting to figure out a different approach because some of it is even starting to get a little under my skin now and its fairly weathered.

    go back to your op and take out the term mansplaining and just insert an anonymous term. Take your genders out altogether as well. What is the offense now? Still the same as it was originally?

    Would it change the offense if you replaced any of those terms with a like term that carried a racial implication? How about any other stereotypes?

    Those questions and answers should be all be obvious enough, but the one I didn't ask was what if you refactored to where not even the stereotypical situations made sense, then what?

    Fate? Act-of-God? Two individual timelines coincidentally crossing paths perhaps?
  • 0
    @lavandysh Still somewhat rhetorical in a general sense but your source book will for rebuttals will be dependent upon your own personal belief and now lead to general fact or fiction debate rather than a situational one.

    Hopefully now we're also at the point to where your ready to ask me what the hell any of that had to do with anything.

    Then again you could be vainly trying to come up with what the point might be so that you can possibly head it off before I make it? Or maybe your thinking the point doesn't matter, I'm just being a man and trying to fuck with your head?
  • 0
    @M1sf3tIn case you are wondering, it's impossible to go back and change the post unless you've got a time machine, then I wonna use it to change something more important. Now, if Devrant allowed it I probably wouldn't because it would feel cowardly to me at this point to change something and pretend I didn't do something that hurt people. I'd rather own up to it.And I don't deny the word hurt people.I'm sad that such a word should and is losing it's usability.
    But I am going to leave Devrant after this conversation is over, because I don't want to be a part of this community with some of things the people say here,like targeted random searches are fine because of statistics.I've looked through some posts that mention sexism and every single one had at least one denyer or similarly bad person.That is not an affront to any of you personally. Fighting to the end here,though.
    I was assuming you would say when you were ready what the point was yourself,if you had another point to share.
  • 0
    @rutee07 Well, that is the way this sort of conversation goes, and the way it was from the very beggining. We all came here with preconcieved notions and it is not in the human spirit to admit if they have changed, but privately we do think about them, and that is why I will continue.
    And I don't 100% mind the toppic switching. I'm not sure there are new points to be made about mansplaining? Some of us, like @irene, are quite honest about just wanting to keep the heat in the discussion going by latching on to new things.
    I personally feel like I can't just quit now because I'm the only person defending the other side that does deserve to be heard and because this was originally my post.
    Did I learn stuff from this? Yes: the connotations of "man-" words have changed and are no longer what I thought, for one. But it took us all a long time to come up with a fitting genderneutral word that most didn't know that didn't blow what up what the guy did.
  • 0
    @lavandysh no one knew the word "interrupting" and "explaining"? 🤔
    You know, not everything should be named in one word (unless you're German).
  • 0
    @irene There we go again. The entire "bias" and "in a manner regarded as condescending or patronizing" part are missing from the definition of explaining. And I'm not going to start a post with "got my portion of explaining in a condescending or patronizing manner, probably because of a gender bias, yesterday at dinner."
  • 0
    @lavandysh okay. Use German.
  • 0
    @irene I wonna ask you a question: "What are your goals in this conversation if you have any?" I think I can understand those of the others, not sure about yours.
  • 0
    @irene What's the German word?
  • 0
    @lavandysh I am a chaotic being 😛
  • 0
    @lavandysh dunno, I can't German.
  • 1
    @irene Hmm... I think @Nanos is the chaotic being here. You're still always on one side but with sidetracks. He/she goes fairly random every once in a while and both sides, as far as I remember?
  • 0
    @lavandysh what I meant is I have no goal 🤷
  • 0
    @lavandysh now why would I do that? Because I'm a male that takes charge and doesn't ever give women an opportunity to speak?

    Or the questions, am I just passive aggressively asking questions to mock you or is there a point to them?

    Are you even sure that my intentions have to do with my male dominance psyche at this point?

    That would be an lot of trouble for someone who's not within the majority of dominant males.

    Or maybe I just fit the original majority, its just that I can no longer exercise my dominance because society has capped the allowed escalation of force to areas where I don't quite excel at.

    Does that mean I'm a brute or perhaps quite a bit of my heritage was only recently assimilated into the majority.

    Maybe my mind just asynchronously processes so many things at once that they don't compile to english in the proper syntax when they hit my audio driver?
  • 0
    @lavandysh Maybe I just talk a lot of shit and read a lot of internet?

    Did I just explain that rather badly on purpose or are we back to me dense again?

    Does it happen to be a matter of convenience that I haven't elaborated on a comment I made the day of the op or did I cleverly disguise that point as a possible star wars joke so that it might be overlooked until needed?

    How about it I'm just unobjectively painting scenarios at this point because it appears to be the only way to get you to realize how how futile assumptions can be and to understand the original point I was trying to make so that we can all quite objectively quit beating our heads against the wall.
  • 0
    @M1sf3t I think it is indeed a compiler issue that affects proper English syntax. But I don't think asynchronisation is the problem. Did you check for nullpointer exceptions? Also: the output is not supposed to go to your audio driver, but you're supposed to write to console in this case.

    Can you fix the bugs and send me the new output? I'll take a look at it then, otherwise the data is very confusing and mostly fumbled. I think I recognize some of it through all the problems, but not enough to analyse. Also, beware of using very long lines of code like you did in that last sentence.
  • 0
    > I am going to leave Devrant after this

    > conversation is over, because I don't want

    > to be a part of this community with some

    > of things the people say here,

    I don't want to be part of Facebook with some of the things the people say there, but I am, because, where else is one going to go which doesn't have that kind of difference of opinion/view/etc. ?

    Here is pretty tame compared to many other places I've been, at least here there is a heightened level of intelligence that is missing in many other places, so you can at least have some kind of legally limited discussion.
  • 1
    > "What are your goals in this conversation

    > if you have any?"

    FX [ Puts one hand up. ]

    <-- Has many goals.

    But one is, that we can't have a conversation because its illegal (At least in my country..) about various related aspects that would be interesting to discuss.

    All I can do is sit and watch, like if a building was on fire, and there was a fire hydrant behind that bush, but I'd get into trouble if I pointed it out to folk armed with nothing more than an empty hose.

    Other goals include better understanding how women think.

    How we might fix society. (That we broke..)

    What is wrong with my thinking, and what do I need to correct it.

    What can I learn from other men talking.

    And how many messages can you have before the thread breaks..

    (Elsewhere, its about 8,000 but then, these aren't threaded messages, just a sequential message system.)
  • 1
    @lavandysh here yes but did I say anything about it occuring in this forum, or just that it happens enough to place me well into that less confrontational category of male? If thats the case then at that point would audio have been an accurate enough description for one's vocal ability?

    How bout are we done trying to argue because we've finally started realizing that we're just being gullibly lead around in circles?

    If i may take brief aside from the debate for a moment, it seems like it might be growing a little tiresome by this point.

    Perhaps a couple of hints would help you find your way around in that maze? Maybe try to at least find a thought that was a direct statement and try to argue that apart? You keep gnawing at the questions I posed then your going to most likely be all day.
  • 0
    @Nanos I didn't say "The conversation is over". Quite the opposite, I'm specifficly waiting for it to be over BEFORE I leave to talk this through with everyone who feels the need, and not shut anyone up.

    About facebook: the people I'm friends with are generally ok (except for a couple).

    If I felt the same way about facebook as I feel about this community right now I would quit it. This being a smaller community doesn't help.

    And right now if I compare the comments I usually see on Facebook and the stuff I saw here when I looked at the beforementioned posts. Facebook was better. Granted, maybe I'm comparing the best with the worst, but my oppinion is ruined and I now have bad associations with this site.
  • 1
    @Nanos I like your goals
  • 0
    > not shut anyone up.

    But political correctness has already shut many of us up !
  • 1
    Another sidebar... you want to know one of the funny mistakes soldiers and police make when they are doing urban op training. They forget to check doorknobs. Imagine for a sec, the door kicker on the team is generally also the biggest unless you have the ability to port heavy tools around. You and the other two or three members on your team stack up on the door while the kickers getting himself all siked up to reign down hardwood havoc. Now from here you can take your pick of causes from any number of things ranging from the point guy carelessly not doing his job, to the kicker being a little too much of an asshole sat night and now the team is ill with him.
    whatever the error the end result is always one of two, the kicker comically bounces off of the door or he somehow manages to work up enough momentum to send the door, its frame and his body crashing 6ft into the room.
  • 0
    > Facebook was better.

    Facebook is more politically correct I notice.

    Even just talking about Global Warming science there can get you into trouble if you aren't part of the 97% of believers..

    I like places of discussion, where you can hear everyone's view, explore all the science, both old and new, and move forward with progress.

    There doesn't appear to be places like that anymore, at least not that I've found.

    Which makes it very difficult to figure out the best course of action in life when you don't know how everything works !

    It really is like playing a MMORPG where little snippets of wisdom are hiding in dusty books in old libraries that no one has read for hundreds of years.
  • 1

    I'm reminded of a trek up a mountain once, our group came across this very large and imposing gate.

    I watched as the rest of my team climbed over it.

    I walked up to it, opened it and walked through. :-)
  • 1
    @lavandysh so not a pleasant experience right? And like I said it could be a number of reasons and will often vary per the teams own discretion.

    But just like in all of the other analogies from before there is one root cause no matter the scenario and it's that no one ever checked to see the direction the door opened or whether it was even locked in the first place.
    Blame who you want for whatever reasoning, but it doesn't change the fact that it wasn't done and now not only are you one team member short because of a ridiculously stupid injury but the entire facility now knows your at the front door.

    Now obviously none of that was entirely a sidebar but what im curious to know now is who have assumed was the team and the door kicker? Ppl from this thread or have we finally arrived to the realization to i gave that approach up and Im now illustrating a common mistake that minorities make as a whole?
  • 0
    @M1sf3t I don't think your analogy applies either way and would rather hear what else @Nanos wants to gather "wisdom" about.
  • 1
    @lavandysh it doesnt? Care to elaborate or is that too much to explain? The bra burners manual doesnt have a pre-scripted comment for the analogy perhaps?

    let me put it in simpler terms. member of majority club walks up to majority club door reads sign that says majority club and another that says pull so he opens the door and goes in. Next majority guy walks up to the door same thing. That pattern is arguably not going to vary.

    But what about the minority groups. How many will read the majority club sign and walk away? How many because it makes them feel excluded? how many because they're resentful?

    What if the the door at the minority club says push? How many will ignore all the signs push the door a few times then walk away? How many will read the sign and call management insisting that they change the way everyone already is used to doing things because they just simply dont want to change themselves.
  • 0
    I don't think I can mention what other things I want to know about, since they are politically sensitive areas.

    So, all I can do is wait until someone complains about X, then I get to hear about X !

    But I can't say, I want to talk about X..

    Nor can I really discuss X, or ask questions about it, or explore related issues.

    Like being on the Titanic, seeing an iceberg in the distance, but being forbidden to tell anyone else about it, or ask about how to solve issues relating to Icebergs.

    But I can listen to other folk talk about it, and take notes..

    I can talk a little about elephants, but I'm not sure anyone would figure out I might be talking about icebergs..

  • 0
    @lavandysh How many will do as the guy in the seemingly irrelevant story and just run straight at the door to knock it down? Better yet should someone succeed how many ppl on the inside are going to be pissed about the building now having a giant hole in the wall and no longer fully insulated to the elements outside?

    You can argue why are their signs doors and walls there in the first place sure, but then your only covering history. I havent mentioned any club rules either. Doesnt mean theyre not there just that we havent described the majority well enough to determine what they would be. Sure you could fill them in with things that the current majorities have in common, but let me hopefully spare you that by first asking how many of the minority club have we eliminated already for frivolous issues?
  • 1
    My point in all this hasnt been to defend anyone, and it never has been. Its not winning/losing, I've got no vendetta whatsoever honestly. Im simply tired of watching minorities follow their party lines and cop out to excuses before they even attempt to dig into the situation.

    Or worse begin rattling off their own lists of assumed stereotypes. How much harder is it for someone to prove they have a valid claim every time someone else from their group makes a false one? Is the ease of use really worth the risk of additional enemies? More importantly if you keep unnecessarily adding to you list of enemies, how will you ever become part of a majority ruling class and not have to worry about such things? Or do you not want that, you'd rather play the "im a woman" card the rest of your days.
  • 0

    Boy, you realy want to get me worked up, don't you?

    First, you purpusefully try to confuse people.

    Second, while no analogy is ever perfect yours has lots of things that don't add up. Who's the team? What does the pain stand for? Who are the bad guys you might alert?

    Your second version is a little better. But the main point is "Don't fight to get in, you can just come in". You are ignoring every bit of discrimination and difficulties people do have to face when opening the door, and that is the entire point of talking about everyday sexism. The idea that they can't come in originates from past experience.

    And yours is a very general statement about feminism, it doesn't realy relate to mansplaining, interrupting, objectivity, or any of the other things we were discussing.

    Also, it's perfectly fine to have a private club and not expect people to walk in it isn't to keep minorities out of certain jobs.

    And, because you asked, here's my "femminist playbook" analogy:
  • 0
    @M1sf3t You get a mountain. Some people live on the top, and some at the bottom. At the top of the mountain you've got your door. Some people live closeby and only have to walk to the door and open it, others have to hike all the way up the top of the mountain in order to reach the door. Yes, some will see the mountain and give up or stop along the way, but some will reach the top. There they complain about how hard their track was, ask for water and want to rest and ask for resources to create a path to be able to go up more smoothly or at least for someone to drop some ropes down. But some of the poeple on the top of the mountain don't want to do that, cause for them it's easy to just open the door, and here they are. Why would they have to spend resources on a path or have to tripple over ropes. ...
  • 0

    And why would these people need more water then they get to get to the door? Or, in the worst case: why are these people all crowding our door, now I can't reach it. And then, after having climbed all that way up and heard those things you see a plaque that says: "privileged club". And you just wanna kick the door down.
  • 1
    @Nanos Fascinating article, do you want me to mention icebergs? Here we go: icebergs have a highest point and a lowest point.
  • 0
    @M1sf3t Also, there's something you really need behind that door, like the entire town's supply of chocolate that only people in the club get to eat
  • 0
    And before the criticism comes: I don't see myself as the person from the bottom. I live fairly close to the top, but have compassion and want a road for those below me. Also I'm not the most deserving or most in need of chocolate or the road.
  • 0
    > if you keep unnecessarily adding to you

    > list of enemies

    That reminds me of many hippy like organisations who start off with the idea to build a Utopia, and then start hating everyone else.

    They start hating money, bankers, people who own land, tall people, etc.

    Kinda the very people you want to help you in the first place..

    They want Utopia too !
  • 0
    I think I can talk about mountains..

    The people who live at the top of the mountain are acclimatized to the low oxygen levels there, through many generations.

    Some of the people who climb to the top of the mountain are likewise gifted and can deal with the different oxygen levels.

    Some have to use breathing gear to get there.

    Some folk want the folk at the top to build a lift for the folk at the bottom, who when they arrive at the top, will send all the people at the top to the bottom, and then after having got to the top, will suffocate because they didn't bring any breathing gear with them..
  • 0
    @lavandysh ok look, just stop and listen to yourself for a second. You built that whole scenario up to whole other level and for why?

    A 2nd question question to ask, was what I said really all that confusing or you were just trying to read too far into it and couldn't find something to argue?

    Maybe you didn't read far enough and just assumed there was some chauvinistic point contained within it?

    What if there never was one, is it possible that I've been just elaborating on my original point? One that you quickly said you understood, yet here we are.

    Generalizations and assumptions can find you in a world of shit if your not careful. Sure its good to keep stereotypes in mind when the situation warrants it, but only as an act of precaution. When further evidence presents itself, then you act, not before.
  • 0
    @lavandysh Before you say that you understand that again, I would like to illustrate some examples, if I may, of where this has occurred in this thread. I've been trying to avoid directs statements up until now both because you were already taking so much heat but also I sensed some general hostility toward the fact that I'm a male.
  • 0
    @irene What's the source of that maxima, I like it. Reminds me if Occam's razor.
  • 1
    @Hubot-0x58 about stupidity and evil intent?
  • 2
    @Hubot-0x58 did you just show up? You actually reading through all that or just flipping through for the highlights 😅
  • 2
    @Hubot-0x58 it's Hanlon's razor. A special case of Occam's razor.

  • 2
    @M1sf3t lol! I don't have the patience for the mansplaining bullshit, I dislike that word and everywhere it's used.
    Irene's comment on Hanlon's razor was what caught my attention.
  • 1
    @Hubot-0x58 I can understand why I think.

    Still its easier than others, this whole "me too" thing is getting out of hand. You too what? You don't want to explain the specifics, ok, understandable, don't put it on public forum. If you do make sure the explanation fits the description, if you can't, pick less charged words to make your statement.

    That's how those terms got to be such a nuisance in the first place
  • 2
    @M1sf3t *Pick less charged words to make your statement*, exactly my thoughts. Many people just want to hitch whatever wagon is popular not because they have a reason to or they truly understand it, just to be part of a 'movement', or a community, just something to give them identity.
  • 0
    I think I crashed Devrant, and it's probably for the best. Was going to write a very detailed response to @M1sf3t about how if he uses phrases like "gnawing at his questions" to get people to respond to his questions and "pre-scripted responses from the bra burners handbook" people would not like him and it isn't because of his gender.
    Maybe another time.
    Anyway, taking a break from Devrant for a few days. Write all you like. I might respond in detail later.
  • 0
    @lavandysh meh, I guess we're finally getting somewhere at least. That statement contained neither a sexist generalization nor an assumption. Well other than that I care about whether people like me or not but I'll give you that one, not everyone gets the misfit reference. Then again maybe I shouldn't, isn't O'Conner on the reading list for the feminist book club?

    Her work is a good read in any case. If you need something to do on your break I mean. Something to consider about my "bra-burner" and "book club" comments though, did I say them because I assumed you were a feminist or to indicate that this whole thread you've sounded like you got the wrong address for the feminist rally down at the men's club?

    Also another thing to consider, see how direct I'm being right now as opposed to earlier? You think that maybe this statement

    For men there is no difference if the risk is higher or lower, they use the same level of objectivity.

    might need some revision?
Your Job Suck?
Get a Better Job
Add Comment