(no subject)

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Sociopolitical satire in the form of a "paralogical" programming language inspired by some gibberish posted by Arielle Schlesinger.

Comments

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

It's funny because someone got outraged enough over a vague spaghetti on the wall level concept of doing something that they created an entire parody to show how much they dislike it.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

That's not what it's meant to show.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So what is it meant to show.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

You want it to be about the authors' feelings so that you can dismiss it based on the authors' class. But it's actually about something you don't want to face: the fact that Arielle Schlesinger, the site she blogs for, and the movement they're part of are paralogical.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

What investment does mylaptopisevil have in whether or not this person's site is "paralogical"?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

I'm also not sure why madscience is dragging "class" into it (or what the hell class I'm even attacking).

My guess is that madscience feels that Schlesinger's article is unreasonable, despite it just being "Huh, I wonder how coding would work if we used this kind of mentality in it".

Not sure why he or the parody-maker are that terrified about someone's random thought experiment college thesis, but there you go.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

The problem is that this idiotic thought experiment is considered valid subject matter for a college thesis. College is supposed to educate people, not validate their stupidity.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

What makes it idiotic?

[madscience.livejournal.com]

It displays total ignorance of the reasons programming languages are the way they are. And although it's always possible, it's extremely unlikely that radical new discoveries or inventions will be made by someone without a deep understanding of what currently exists. To believe otherwise is wishful, magical thinking, and that kind of thinking has no place in academics. Teachers do a disservice to students when they tolerate and encourage it, and a disservice to society when they award degrees for it.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So all the theories behind programming are free from any kind of bias or considerations that may be determined from the culture(s) that created them?

What a unicorn!

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Well, if he's concerned at all about equality, he should be concerned that feminism has gone completely off the rails.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And so this one site dedicated to weird ideas has weird ideas shows that faminism has gone off the rails?

[madscience.livejournal.com]

It's fairly representative.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

So if one group looks wacky, we should just discard an entire idea? You sure you want to go down that path?

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

that feminism has gone completely off the rails.

I'm afraid that despite the claims of people who support this thesis (Men Going Their Own Way, Paul Elam and his website A Voice For Men, The Spearhead, Vox Day, etc), I have yet to see sufficient evidence to support the thesis. The only "off-the-rails" feminism that I continue to see is a very small and rapidly shrinking segment of transphobic radfems who are angry about their continually diminishing relevance in feminist thought.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

But someone wrote a thesis for college that wanted to look at coding through a lens that is unexpected, in order to see if anything useful could come from it.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS?!

No, really, do you know what this means, because I'm at a loss and it seems it means something so drastic that a site decided to write a parody that seems to be longer than the thesis itself.

[farchivist.livejournal.com]

Yes, I know exactly what it means. It means that some 4channers had too much free time on their hands (http://archive.rebeccablacktech.com/g/thread/38739122). Really. That's it.

As usual. madscience is reading a lot of things into it that aren't really there. Combined with his usual disparaging of thought experiments, feminism, and higher education in general.

He's never going to actually explain why he thinks the thought experiment is idiotic anyway.

[phildegrave]

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS?!

...that someone is off their meds?

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So what's it meant to show.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

Your usual tactic of stubbornly ignoring reality isn't going to work.

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

So what's it meant to show.

[madscience.livejournal.com]

http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/4024856.html?thread=91218968#t91218968

[mylaptopisevil.livejournal.com]

That didn't answer the question.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

I am currently exploring feminist critiques of logic in hopes of outlining a working framework for the creation of a feminist programming language.

~ ~ ~

A feminist critique of logic? That does open itself to macho ridicule, doesn't it?

[madscience.livejournal.com]

I've noticed a tendency for SJWs cornered by a reductio ad absurdum to respond by enthusiastically embracing the absurd. Hence the passage in "Derailing for Dummies" which states that rationality is a tool of oppression. Or when it's pointed out that denying the agency of women with different value systems is essentially equivalent to claiming that half the population suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, explicitly claiming that half the population suffers from Stockholm Syndrome. (Actually saw the latter on Left Action's FB feed the other day.)