roarroar

It's okay, I don't expect chronically stupid people to recognise their betters.

Feminism is a slave morality by definition. I didn't invent the term. You're welcome to reject advances in Western Philosophy if you like. The value that comes out of engaging me is talking to someone who is interested in more than mere gossip. I mean, look at your comment: no more than questioning my credentials, in response to a comment of mine suggesting that maybe people put forward some _actual content_. Amazing

I don't know what you mean by "slaving morality". Is that a new term for "master morality", or a typo?

My language is not more "wildly provocative" than your use of the the phrase "wildly provocative". It's only "wildly provocative" to you because you didn't bother to understand it. The whole point of the Bechdel test is to promote a slave morality (in this case feminism). Insisting that nobody embellish their language a little is unworkable, as you illustrated by embellishing your own language.

That you think the terms "slave morality" and "total degeneration" are "extreme rhetoric" illustrates that you didn't understand the post. The point of reading is not to find any old interpretation, but to figure out what the poster meant. It's because of these highly superficial readings that the GP is allowed to get away with inserting the assumption that these sort of measures represent improvement, in spite of the fact that at the limit of slave morality is total degeneration.

In other words, you ignored the content of my comment and went looking for _dirt_ you could use against me. Bravo, you complete imbecile. And I am anti-egalitarian - feminism is just the current vogue in the tech scene, which is currently degenerating both technically and socially. And your behavior of gossiping about my account is a prime example.

Maybe the downvoters can make an argument. I doubt it, since that is the reason people abuse the downvote button - to shut off an argument they are incapable of understanding.

>Broad generalizations and extreme sexism.

Your comment is up there with the "worst garbage" on HN. An inconvenient opinion that you have no answer to (see next paragraph), answered with a laughable accusation of "extreme sexism". Get a life, loser.

>You might as well have said civil rights leaders should have sucked it up and built something themselves.

You might as well have brought the slaves of Sparta into the discussion. The conditions of women trying to produce their own films aren't even in the same _sport_ as the broad issues facing blacks during the civil rights movement. This is one mark of the egalitarian: to covertly exploit those weaker than him in order to press forward his own interests.

>But out of place - this is for serious discussion.

Yes, like your moronic attack on me. Grow a brain.

The first iteration of what? Total degeneration? How can you "improve" a test designed to enforce slave morality on creative people?

Maybe if feminists (part of the parasitic political class) spent less time being resentful of what others have built and built something themselves they'd have less reason to be resentful in the first place. Now we're living not just with the reactive feminist losers, but the reactive-reactive super-loser MRA types.

>The point of the post was about hatred and rejection of women in software engineering, and this comment was one example of it being a real thing, frequently denied all over HN.

Nope. It was a valid comment directed at a little PC warrior. Possibly from an unsavory character with malignant motives - as you keep repeating - but that isn't of interest. Further, my reply - from which your whole conversation with me spawns, and therefore constitutes the topic of this subthread (the one involving you and me) - was commenting on the reaction of people to the post itself which was a valid observation. Your contention that it is offensive and comes from someone you don't like is of no interest to me. The content of the post was not hateful toward women, even if the author is (itself dubious on a troll-filled Internet). Perhaps if you'd bothered reading what I say instead of firing off scattershot self-righteousness you'd have gotten somewhere in this thread.

>And when a bunch of HNers came in and said 'he didn't mean that, he was just trolling the stupid PC SJ types, I'm sure he wants women to be in software engineering ...

Please limit yourself to what I said in the parents, since that is what you are replying to. It's enough work to get you to read my own posts for comprehension without taking on the additional burden of defending other people in the thread who you _imagine_ share common ground with me.

>I'm sorry if I over generalised your habits from your behaviour. If you don't normally give the benefit of the doubt to people displaying bigoted behaviour, why did you do so in this case?

I don't agree that the post displayed bigoted behavior. The only reason to think the comment comes from a hatred of women is from information that you dug up. I'm not interested in digging up bullshit this guy might have said elsewhere, therefore there was no reason for me to think that's where it came from. I don't care if he's a _child molester_. He may or may not be any number of things.

The fact that you apologise for over-generalising shows that you missed the point, which is not that you affronted me by over-generalising, but that you destroyed the discussion and wasted my time by going on about my personality and the personality of the person who made the original post. And you're still doing it!