Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
P is for Practical
 
PerlMonks  

Re^8: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

by pemungkah (Priest)
on Apr 08, 2013 at 19:45 UTC ( #1027586=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^7: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
in thread How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?

You do realize you're not talking to me more, but to tinta, who is on evidence actually a woman?

Do you have any idea how bad you look here? I'm guessing not. Let me fill you in: Bad. Quite bad indeed.


Comment on Re^8: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
Re^9: How many man-hours would you estimate you have invested in learning Perl?
by Anonymous Monk on Apr 09, 2013 at 00:06 UTC

    So first you brand one monk as sexist based upon your hypersensitive misreading of a harmless joke.

    Now you brand another as homophobic, assuming both the gender and sexual preference of that monk, based upon your misunderstanding of the etymology of mangina, which in this context has zero sexual connotations.

    Both of which are indefensible. But only if they are true.

    Which is exactly what makes it of such great import that the are not bandied about lightly, and paramount that be both defensible and defended when they are leveled unjustifiably.

    And that's where your misguided white knight act falls flat on its face, doing more harm than good.

    With your ability to misconstrue the innocuous as the obnoxious, you not only harm those you target, but also create a climate of apprehension that destroys social interaction because the monks are in constant fear of saying the wrong thing and inadvertently raising the ire of the PC gods.

    Not only do you not understand what does and does not constitute sexism worthy of redress, you also have no idea of how best to attempt such redress. Had you gone quietly to the gods and voiced your concerns that the joke was questionable, then they might have considered them and perhaps quietly changed the wording, or dropped the option.

    Instead of that, you choose to consider your judgement as sacrosanct, and publicly vilify the originator of the poll who has no opportunity to change anything, even if he chose to accept your judgement.

    Given that ability, and your misplaced arrogance that your position is unassailable, it comes as no surprise that you continue to think that you are in the right.

    Nor, that you continue to misread my disagreement with your judgement as tacit indication that I'm three kinds of bigot. Your judgement is so flawed, I'm only surprised that you haven't yet attempted to also brand me as a racist, xenophobic, pedophile.

    As one of us said in an earlier post, your puerile attempts to be seen as a PC-complaint knight in shinning armor do more harm than good.

      The thread is not over yet so hold your breath. Those brands ARE gonna be used. Same they always are when someone's petty ego gets hurt.

      Jenda
      Enoch was right!
      Enjoy the last years of Rome.

        Ever has it been so.

        The righteously wrong, muster the unthinkingly unknowing, 'gainst the reasonable man on the basis of twitterly extracts and sensational sound-bites.

        ...Ism they cry, and the faithful come flocking to the defense of the heresy that wasn't. Not pausing to read in full; much less consider in depth.

        As a mentor long ago told me, but I have only latterly come to understand, it is only once you have ceased fearing what other may think of you, that you attain the freedom to be who you truly are, and see the world as it really is.

        And so it is that reasonable men become burdened with the stigma born of imagined wrongs of unreasoned zealots.

        As with the Rivers of Blood, still so widely misunderstood, it may be many years before the valid argument overrides the perception of unreasonable terms and stands not without prescience.

      There is one short phrase, that if it was meant, would solve the problem.
      "I'm sorry, that was out of line. I realize it was in bad taste, and I won't repeat it."
      Done. That is how you solve a social misstep. You do not insist it was fine, you do not lambaste the person who said "I don't think that was a nice thing for you to say."

      You say "I'm sorry. I was wrong." Nothing more complicated than that. (Anything more complicated than that and you may be convincing yourself you've apologized without doing so.)

      In that vein: I apologize for letting myself get angry when the name-calling started. I apologize specifically to all those who have been posting anonymously for calling you cowards. I do not agree with the course you're pursuing; I believe a person should to accept responsibility for their words and actions - but I should not have belittled you for it. I should have respected myself more than that. I will continue to mention that I do not agree with the action, but I will be more courteous.

      I will also continue to try to engage with those who are still posting. Perhaps when the name-callers get tired we'll see some real discussion of the issues.

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://1027586]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (15)
As of 2014-09-23 16:47 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    How do you remember the number of days in each month?











    Results (232 votes), past polls