justathrow2k

ah, I believe if we got into a deep conversation about that here it would be a bit of a derail. You can e-mail me at sevensharpscales at gmail dot com if you're genuinely curious about my thoughts on this subject. Personally, I don't think they'll be of much interest.

Something being accepted by society does not imply progress.

I just fail to see the progress part here, I suppose. Maybe my view of this is daft, but the slang being created by the generation today isn't helping us say things we couldn't say before or moving anything forward - its simply the nature of slang, it constantly changes through the generations.

That's not a very compelling argument.

edit: The comparison to Shakespeare just seems kind of off, but beyond that, I never argued that the vernacular / slang being generated today wouldn't be used or become accepted by society at large.

I'm not convinced its not any less childish screwing around just because it generates a shared vocabulary for people. It's not progress of culture or language, simply an increase of quantity of slang and in-jokes.

It really wants me to go to Witchita for some reason. The troll in the cage does seem quite nice, but its just shy of two thousand miles away from me.

The missing context isn't race - the context needed was already there, being in the inner city and exposed to gangs. Simply put, the whole United States isn't like this because there aren't more black people across the entire country, but because the entire country isn't made up of inner city areas with high gang activity.

I agree that too much has already been said about it, but I'd say too much was said about it when it was simply posters calling themselves assholes and sexist for making a simple mistake. On that note, I'll step away from this topic :) It would be nice if this entire comment tree was removed from the thread, it detracts from the actual subject at hand.

Asshole is of course facetious, and I don't think anyone suspects any of the posters here of beating themselves up horribly about it, but the general sentiment being expressed is still one of regret and feeling bad, and for what? Because you assumed the sex of someone in an article and ended up being wrong? This doesn't hurt anyone, I suspect. I don't believe that the positive energy in the ether is going to suffer a net loss because some people made this assumption either.

But it's not just that, feeling bad about about assuming the incorrect sex of an author and recognizing a simple mistake. This can be seen in the fact that one poster even went so far as to describe their assumption and one of another user's as being 'sexist', which it most likely is not. Someone said it best earlier, so I'm just going to quote them,

'Making an assumption about someones gender, race, age, etc based on what is most common (or most common to you) does not make you a sexist, racist or agist. It just makes you human.'

When presented with a faceless author and no hints of their sex or appearance, its pretty typical for one to fill in the blanks in their mind. The picture they come up with will be informed by all the experiences that they have encountered in their lifetimes. Simply being wrong doesn't suggest any ill will, belief of inequality, discrimination, or prejudices towards or against any group of people. Whoops seems like a level headed response, Oh shit I'm being sexist seems like a bit of an exaggeration.

Although it totally could be case, and kudos to someone who suddenly has the self realization that they're a sexist and wants to post about it.

Don't be too hard on yourself. By your own admission you assumed the sex of the author just because you have a wife who is teaching your own child. As far as my understanding of sexism goes this is miles away from being an example of sexism.

I assure you that you're not an asshole for incorrectly assuming the sex of an individual whose sex was not identified.

I don't think anything was arguing that they weren't discriminatory, or in the very least I wasn't trying to argue that. The claim was that it was discriminatory towards non-whites. I'm claiming its discriminatory to anyone regardless of race and instead its more dependent on their income level and environment they grow up in.

I'm a white male but I know that personally I had no clue what Crew was during my high school years. Anecdotally, I went to school in an area where the public school population majority was, well, what we consider the minority when discussing race relations.

Well, there's your answer.

But even if they cannot be separated (a conversation for another time) these questions are still difficult for anyone living in the inner city, especially those in the lower income class, not just those who are minorities, wouldn't you agree?

Isn't this more an issue of class more than race, doe? Even with the argument that members of a certain race tend to belong to a certain class it doesn't change the fact that its still inherently a class and environment issue.

Like, from your post, I would say that Crew is an obscure reference for anyone living in the inner-city, not just minorities.

Well,it sounds like you've already made up your mind, so at what number did you reach the breaking point and made the decision that the entirety of our law enforcement system was spoiled?

And what of the women on the jury?

I think if you're going to school and refusing to put forth the work to succeed ( do homework and study, for instance ) perhaps you should stop, it doesn't seem like its a good fit for you. Either that or step up your game so you're not wasting time and money. There's a lot that one can learn during their time at University, there's also a lot of time one can waste.

That's nice. If there were a competition of who could grasp the main point from this article the quickest without even reading it you might be in the running for first.

But almost the perfect amount of words for someone who wanted to write an article about a subject and not a quick summary.

You guess wrong - demand will always be high. For the most part, the people who can easily get hookups on Tinder are not the same people who would be paying for sex.

Agreed. The text of the article simply should have been one word, 'Because'. Trying to make reason of the nature of absurdity seems fairly absurd itself.

So, why don't you use your real name on HN, again?

>This is why I don't use my real name on HN.

Because you don't want the people in your life knowing that you pay money to manipulate and deceive those around you? Seems smart to keep that a secret.

By greatest marketing concept you mean a quick and easy way to make money, yeah? I wouldn't be so hard on yourself for not having thought of it. Personally, I believe humanity would be at a net gain had no one thought of or executed on this idea.

I'm sorry, are you hoping I provide an all encompassing answer that convinces you of its usefulness? I can't provide that. Like I said, its simply a matter of personal preference. You find types limiting, others find them helpful.

I don't think laziness or a lack of desire to learn java script is the driving force for these projects. Rather, its simply for people who prefer a facade of strong types over their java script.

Damn, dawg, u gangsta. Hit me up on my boost mobile, son, lets do big thangs.

Just to clarify, I never said atheism required faith. Please, read the comment you responded to.

I feel like its important to point out that having faith in a creator is not exclusive to having a belief in things like eternal life, favourable relations with a powerful being, etc. etc. People seem to easily conflate faith in a creator with practicing a mainstream religion.

edit: I would also like to add, although I already said it, that I believe both of these opinions regarding the creator are acts of faith, to absolutely say there is not one and to absolutely say there is, and if someone where to have made a statement as if a creators existence was a sure thing I would have called them out just the same.