Fuck people who are discriminated against and make fucking social causes out of it.

I'm trying to point out, but you're probably not capable of seeing, that you're trying to have it both ways. Don't bag on SJW's for believing in the victimhood culture that the Left has foisted on us, when you believe in it too. We're all victims, every day, of how other people treat us.

What's this "groups" crap? If I join a quilting club, that's a group. The Democrat Party is a group, since can I register affiliation with it. If it's not something I've specifically volunteered to associate myself with, then it's not a group to me unless there's some clear-cut, bonafide scientific reason for the delineation, like "only women should get gynological checkups". Fine, that's an actual, undisputed reason to conceive of a division amongst human beings. The Left's arbitrary divisions of us, are not. I am not the sum of my accidental memberships in the Left's list of approved groupings of people.

Is that really your argument? Is that really an argument? Almost everything we do affects other people, to some degree, somehow. My car pollutes the air. My voice can be heard by others in the vicinity. Should my car be taken from me and my tongue cut out because they affect other people? Isn't that really an asinine, simpleton's threshold?

People can't even agree on what's "common sense", so how then could a vague, hand-waving "bread-and-butter issues" description be of any use? Can't define it, but know one when you see it?

And where on earth did we get the idea that those with vaginas should advance and earn at the rate as those with penises? And why is that even the delineation?!? I've read that shorter people don't advance and earn at the rate that taller people do. We could think of a million ways to slice and dice people into groups, and then compare them and say aha, another million inequities discovered!

Smart people probably generally earn and advance more than dumb people. Who says yours/the Left's invented dividing lines amongst people (race, gender, and whatever the fuck else) are more relevant than mine? Just because? Because of mob rule/the people who shout the loudest should get to define the terms in which we reason about things?

And there's where I reject how we're trained to think about things. By writing/thinking "it's a problem" instead of "that person's problem", you took what is "someone's problem" and made it "all of our's problem". Which is also what people you call SJW's do; make their offense at something the whole world's problem.

For any given thing that someone does not like (and there's billions of people on the planet, and we're all unique), at what point should it be escalated to having its own identity? "Widespreadness"? At what point should some people's experiences, whether offense by a bunch of Conservatives at the Left calling them racists, or a bunch of women feeling hostility in a sector of the private sector, become "an issue" that therefore should be imposed on everyone else to include in the long list of problems in this life that need dealing with?

But note that here you're talking about what needs to be done to solve the "problem", but I asked why in the world is it really a problem? I.e. you may not want to examine things at this more fundamental level, and instead prefer to go on just assuming that "x should feel welcome in y" basis, but there it is, that's what I'm asking about. Because I think the bases we're herded into thinking in terms of is actually a real problem.

From TFA:

I've got a really fundamental question, about nowadays umpteen things like this: Why is that defined as a problem?!?

That's some big talk coming from a seemingly steadfast doormat for the Left. Assuming you're serious, remember that, whoever this is about, they know not what they do. If you're really gotten over yourself and the thinking that you can save those who are really too far gone, recommend ixnay on the venom and just forgiving and moving on. Maybe God has a plan to later reach certain people, through other vessels. Something worth praying for.

I would've never guessed someone like that would do such a thing. I'm sure it was just a fluke. Don't give up hope.

Attitudes are different outside of Silicon Valley. The worst I've seen along these lines is a few of my peers who've done things blatantly towards adding to their resume vice being a professional at their current gig.

While "software engineering" isn't "engineering" per se (it's a lot of art(isanship)), consider that it's not all just a bunch of phony stuff that doesn't matter a hill of beans. And that those who strive to do software well in languages including C#, Java, and JavaScript would be as adverse to working on a development team with you as you would be with us.

I get that you can't unteach laziness and lack of follow-through, but you also can't teach a passion for doing software well. If you're satisfied with people whose interest is elsewhere but can easily learn a couple of languages, that's fine, but I sure wouldn't want to work with them.

tl;dr: "Someone who learns how to design can design anything" is about as true as MBA schools' "someone who learns how to manage can manage anything".

Yikes, add reduced reading comprehension to your list of side effects! Because that's what I was saying too, but just that it's not a bad thing (relative to reality). I know I would gladly trade 2 points off the top end to spare me 4 point drops at the bottom.

How do you know you could get any "real engineers" to work as programmers?

I consider good programmers to have deep interest in software engineering principles and techniques. My experience has been that it's a real crapshoot to find this in CS degreed people, and almost impossible in other degreed people. (YMMV.)

Now that I think about it, I don't think I've seen older people in HR in my career so far (and I'm later in my career) so maybe ageism is rampant in HR as well.

Ageism is probably rampant in every job function except top management, because age is thought to correlate somewhat with compensation, and upper management wants to keep a lid on expanding costs to the business everywhere but their ranks, of course.

(That is, everyone in every job function is keenly aware of the value they and their peers bring, so nothing different about the suits in this regard, where the only unique part is that they have the power to set expenditures policy.)

"Squeezed"? That's what normal is, in range of intensity of mood. Restoration back to normal human condition is a (unfortunate) "side effect"? This might be a like a former drug addict who misses the feelings of 10's and wonders how they can live with only feeling 8's max from then on.

Boo hoo. Welcome to the real world.

I get minor depressive episodes occasionally but they only last for half a day, not months. The side effects that you've been having definitely sound like no fun at all, but feeling a 3 (or maybe less in your case) for months on end is not what I would call living either.

Hoping you can find adjustments that make you happier. (Notice I didn't say "happy", which I don't think really is possible in this life.)

Why it really is that Slashdotters have an aversion to contact sports: painful memories from high school