krynd wrote:We all see what we want to see, no matter what we're looking at.
krynd wrote:For instance, de seems intent to denounce 90% of the Intertubez as misogynic.
No, I said that digg was misogynistic, and that most sci/tech geek areas of the internet (excluding xkcd fora excluding this forum, apparently) have a higher proportion of males than females.
krynd wrote:While that view is to be respected, I must disagree. As spork said, most of the comments were satirical.
So is "Pix Plz".
krynd wrote: Even if they weren't, they don't represent any real mass of people. Semi-social networks like the standard news aggregates (Digg, /., Technorati, etc) and full social networks (MySpace, Flickr, Facebook, etc) don't represent society. They merely represent the loudest, most self-deluded, conniving, and often lonliest people in the world. Do you honestly think someone with adequate social skills would have 5000 friends on MySpace? What about the uber-nerd on /. who always knows the right thing to say?
Internet communication is flawed compared to face-to-face contact. Online, you
can live in Malibuhave near infinite time to search Wikipedia (if you're IMming someone, just say you were AFK for some reason). You can re-read your post dozens of times, practically guaranteeing that you will make a funny post without unduly offending someone. You can only be as wrong as you want to be. In the real world, you have one shot, no time-outs, and worse yet, you give off constant subtle cues as to your real meaning. If you take "too long" to answer a question online, it's called lag. In the real world: lying (or at least, suspicious).
It seems you tend to confuse a few loudmouths with public opinion. If I were to stand on my soapbox and scream "Emacs is better than Vi!", does that make it true? I'd have my share of people who agreed with me, and a few who'd pull out the old "that OS needs a text editor" routine. Still, it doesn't mean Emacs is the better text editor. It's simply better suited for some things that Vi isn't.
I don't think I have said anything in this thread linking digg opinion to general public opinion.
Originally, I was trying to make a point that you can often tell a person's gender online. I also said that most geek sci/tech fora have a male majority. Obviously, I do not think that the digg gender ratio is representative of the gender ratio in real life.
krynd wrote: Your digg reference did indeed point to the most satirical posts. Further, the topic at hand was one that would make many people threatened: The idea that you are essentially irrelevent, specifically by technology you helped create.
Imagine if one day you go to work, and your boss says, "Sorry, don't need you today. Some machine's doing it for you". So, you go home, but your partner decides s/he met someone at work who they "just love more than you". So you go to the pub, but the barkeep's been replaced with a self-serve. Throw some change in the machine, your mug under the nozzle, and press a button for what size you want. Then, you go to the doctor for your massive hangover, and he "upgrades" your eyes and ears for you (do you need them? Just get a machine to do it for you). Ad infinitum...
Ultimately, we can all be replaced, and it is that fear that some of the digg'ers were talking about. So, kindly forgive the men for their initial fright, you'd probably be scared too if someday you were found to be irrelevent (yes, I know I'm greatly exaggerating the article). Have you ever watched the movie "Fight Club"? It deals with the issue you bring up, in a rather interesting way too.
Fear isn't a good excuse for poor thinking and scapegoating.
krynd wrote:As far as the distinction between "creepy" and not, I'd say something as harmless as "What's your name?" is indeed harmless. You're not under any obligation to give a real name. Besides, knowing someone's name (real or not) brings a more personal level to the conversation. Yes, if they ask you it before a conversation has started, then fine, it is creepy. But if it happens later on, I don't see what's wrong with it.
Yes, if it happens later on, it wouldn't be creepy.
krynd wrote:Likewise when someone asks you for your number/IM, you don't have to give your real one out. I'm somewhat well known IRL for being very hesitant about giving out information (even my closest friends often don't know more about me than one of my disposable e-mail accounts). Therefore, what basis is your paranoia, well... based? Not everyone is out to stalk you,
Obviously, only like 1% of people in public places are creeps and 99% are normal, but you have to understand that for most females, the people that randomly try to interact with you in public are not representative of the general population. The sample of people who try to talk to you are biased towards social people, people who want something from you (out-of-town people who need directions), other people who want something from you (panhandlers), and other people who want something from you (creeps).
krynd wrote:just that creepy kid from next door who keeps walking past your window and staring. Staring with his beady little eyes, until he decides one day to break into your house, put cameras throughout it, and watch you 24/7. The only protection is a mass signal disruptor. Quick, to the EMP generator!