Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Huh (Score 1) 722

CmdrTaco: If a disproportionate number of people of race X committed crimes or were not going through higher education (for whatever reason), would it be okay to add in comments to summaries which mention "Your race-X friends might be more interested in the armed robberies which can be more easily performed with this high-tech weapon." or "Your race-X friends might not be able to appreciate this cool advance in materials science which will allow faster processors soon (which we, with our good educations, are able to understand and appreciate), but maybe they'll be interested in the pretty graphics this new development enables!"? I understand that there's nothing wrong with appreciating gymnastics so the analogy to my first (armed robberies) example may not appear to hold, but there is certainly an implication that gymnastics is 'not a real sport' (maybe it is, maybe it isn't... that's not relevant to my argument here), and thus there is something wrong with those who like/appreciate it... and thus the analogy holds when we are considering not the value of those who like gymnastics but the likely implication (of CmdrTaco) regarding the value of those who like gymnastics. And regarding my second analogy: Whatever the reason for differences in interests in the two sexes (biological, or environmental (eg, privilege, encouragement)), why not make fun of people who like something (gymnastics or pretty graphics) only if (a) the thing they like is somehow stupid to like, and (b) (nearly) every member of that group likes the (stupid) thing in question? For example, if I want to make fun of people who like monster car truck races in a post about some tech advance which will both change the efficiency of fuel-efficient cars and will also impact some aspect of monster truck races (where, say, the impact is both relevant to the tech advance, but also something which I hope/think is considered stupid by the readers), would it be acceptable to make a comment at the end of a post saying something like "But men may be more interested in [insert something I'm implying it's stupid to find interesting and is in the area of monster truck races?". I don't know. Maybe you think it's okay. But I believe that's based on an emotion that depends on the fact that on slashdot, most people will be resistant to being sexist against men, because people are more likely to be (a) rational, (b) caring about social/moral issues, (c) men... and you know this. And thus, even those who are neither very _rational_ nor _caring_ about what's right/wrong (either factually or morally) when it comes to social issues (I'm sure there are some readers on slashdot who are like this), are likely to be men. And history has shown that people without properties (a) and (b) are likely to be prejudiced against those not in their own group, regardless of whether the group in question actually picks out the qualities which are sufficient for determining superiority over those outside the group.

Thankfully for me, I find that (at least highly-modded) posters on slashdot seem to have properties (a) and (b) in spades, and thus although for one depressing moment I felt not at home on slashdot, I felt at home again, after reading some posters' responses. Thank-you to those of you (especially to the men, who have nothing to gain from being outraged at sexism against women (except living in a more just society!)). Please know that I have, in the past, admonished my feminazi friends from being sexist assholes on matter of principle too. (I no longer do this because I've learned to choose better friends).

Slashdot Top Deals

Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!