Chaebixi

Interesting that this post was utterly buried. It hit the first page at most an hour ago, but now it's at the bottom of page 12.

I think you misunderstand. Whatever extra appeal you have to potential partners from having other people who "chose you (among others)" may be effectively negated because you're unwilling to abandon those others for the new partner. The people you attract probably don't want to share you.

So you and the person you were responding to can both be right. You're made "more attractive" but the "pool of women willing to date [you still] evaporates.

> It's not hyperbole. If you're not allowed to hold a job because you're female, how is that much better than slavery?

You serious? Just to point out a few of the glaring problems with your position:

1) you're essentially offering up a straw man to over-broadly condemn a wide range of social practices (which you haven't demonstrated much understanding of);

2) your general assertion that married women (globally, I assume) were generally not allowed to "hold a job" is questionable on many levels (for instance, on a family farm, do you think the husband had a "job" but the wife did not?);

3) if you weren't aware: slaves are legally property that can be bought, sold, and killed if it suited their master, serfs weren't slaves and neither were wives.

> If you can't call it marriage, the group denied that right is second class, full stop.

People can use different terms to distinguish between different things, but that doesn't necessarily make any of those things "second class," full stop.

> women being [...] barely better than slaves.

That's unhelpful hyperbole.

>> he's honest with potential partners about being in an existing open relationship then the pool of women willing to date him evaporates

> I believe already having one or more lovers makes you much more attractive since the fact that those people chose you (among others) means you are probably a good choice.

Attractive to steal or attractive to share? That's an important and relevant difference.

> Now, is the rest of the statement true?

No, clearly not. There are a lot more problems with the paragraph than can be solved by a simple substitution.

The root problem is that it's very hard (almost impossible) to make statements about the whole of an uncoordinated, loosely defined group that are both specific and true. Also, when you think you can easily make such statements, it probably doesn't mean that you're right but rather your thinking is being driven by biases and group-prejudice.

> Just for the record: GamerGate was 100% founded on harassing women. The "ethics in games journalism" thing was only ever a front to build popular support, which unfortunately worked. I'm happy to post more details if you're unconvinced.

GamerGate wasn't coordinated enough and lacked the centralized leadership to have been "founded" for a purpose or be a "front" to achieve specific clandestine goals.

From what I gather, it was sort of like Occupy Wall Street in that there was really no there there besides a vague ethos shared by the people who took up its flag to pursue their disparate pet causes.

> Not trying to be cocky, but why is affordable housing a right in a capitalist society? Genuinely curious.

Because, in the West at least, society isn't capitalist uber alles.

> To be fair they haven't screwed up LinkedIn. I think they will let GitHub grow with their resources.

I'm not sure if LinkedIn could be any less "screwed up" than it was when Microsoft bought it.

> That's the literal reading at least. However since CoC violations are filtered through basically one person, personal biases will weigh heavily in how the rules are applied.

Yeah. To me, that part of the explanation read something like "we found democratic governance to be a lot of work, so we've given all our power to a dictator to make things easier for ourselves."

Democratic and consensus-based governance is hard and takes work, but there are well-understood reasons why it's a better way to run a community.

> If there is no muck to be raked, then you should be in the clear.

This argument seems equivalent to the idea there's nothing to fear from surveillance if you have nothing to hide.

> why do we need to formally state that we should be decent human beings?

That's problematic phrasing. "Decency" is subjective and sits too high up on the pyramid of abstractions. Decent people disagree on what being decent actually means. If they're actually going to communicate, the conversation has to be about specifics.

> What a nightmarish reality to live in. You can’t trust your own parents, friends, neighbors, etc.

I think you missed my point. That's inaccurate and not what I intended to communicate.

My point was that Chinese can complain about their country among themselves, but there are social taboos against doing the same thing among foreigners. The implication is that when a foreigner asks a Chinese person what they really think about their country, they'll probably get a whitewashed version rather than their true feelings.