Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[WarRoot]

So you find fat girls attractive?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

That's a contruct by the manputer maniverse. All women are fat. No women are fat. Join us.

[My Name is Immaterial]

I'm sorry, but I can't take your lack of seriousness seriously with that avatar.

[scrdest]

I'm sorry, but I can't take your lack of seriousness seriously with that avatar.

The text under it still fits, though.

[Tiruin]

Posting from the past due to timezone difference. :X[spoiler@Reelya]

Well, there's got to be a reaosn why someone would put 'feminism' > programming languages. I..am really unsure on how women's rights relates to programming languages, or the usual characteristics attributed to the, in a language to..erh. I really don't get it.

What's with the abstractions in the language?

Well, to explain that you need to know a bit about postmodernism. Really, read the OP as "towards postmodern programming languages", but the postmodernists know that nobody's buying that so they label it "feminist".

postmodernists reject formal logic. Postmodern feminism specifically labels it as "patriarchal". They hate "binaries" which they say are artificial, maaaan. It's really hippy dip shit logic dressed up with layers of confounding jargon. One key thing they say is that propositions "x" and "not x" can both be true at the same. Because truth is relative.

This comes from postmodern relativism. they believe all "truths" are culturally relative. that includes mathematical identity equations involving raw numbers. 1+1=2 is only a cultural conceit.

So, naturally, someone indoctrinated in postmodern relativism will naturally view basic programming structures as a cultural artifact, and assume that there are countless equally viable "non-normative paradigms" that we haven't thought up yet, to rival e.g. object oriented programming.

The Dunning-Kreuger Effect also plays a part, I think: the false belief of an outsider that a field is a lot less deep than it really is. Postmodern faculties (they're not labeled that, they're labeled gender studies, liberal arts, philosophy or humanities departments - not ALL bad, but these are the schools where postmodernists infect the young) teach that the sciences are a load of culturally-relative bunk, so students in these schools have the impression that the entire body of logic, maths, science, IT and engineering disciplines are like a house of cards just waiting for their "culturally relative" deconstruction.

That's the only sensible conclusion to Ari Schlesinger's belief that she can create a whole new system of logic and programming in a short order of time. People spend and entire lifetime researching less that Ari wants to achieve.

[/spoiler]The orange part is what struck me first: So people are using not the concept, but the label of feminism on things to...imply such abstract processes that they don't make sense--only through the use of assumptions and stereotypical attributes seen by a generality rather than a thoughtfully specified fact?

I mean, for one who did research into the fields of gender-equality or difference, I see little difference within the 'patriarchal/matriarchal' point in that context, other than giving the notion on 'how we're raised, that's how we generally think', especially in a programming language. (...There's sexism there? - was my initial...verbose query)

At the next orange paragraph...I can't understand how that became a trending notion, and daresay a rational fact. Rational because...it's being taken as assumed, proven "knowledge" instead. That kind of relativity seems more spurious than not, due to the superficial concept on 'this is how I say it and it is possible', disregarding the historical roots and how it was proven in that way, long ago, and under the note of being "cultural" is...a leap in ignorance. Or, from those who haven't broadened their thinking or knowledge.

What I can't get is why it's called 'postmodern' now. Thanks for explaining it in whole(?).

[Reelya]

What I can't get is why it's called 'postmodern' now. Thanks for explaining it in whole(?).

Because it came after a period of thought and design called "modernism". There is no other reason. Postmodernism's heyday was the 1960's and 1970's. But it lingers on in the far recesses of the humanities fields in college.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_postmodernism

Basically, Chomsky talks in an essay about hard-to-understand things, e.g. quantum theory, if you don't understand the jargon, you can pretty much get someone who does understand it to decode it into a comprehensible set of sentences in regular English. Not so with postmodernism: "if we don't use the big words, it wouldn't be 'profound' anymore, now would it?"

[scrdest]

What I can't get is why it's called 'postmodern' now. Thanks for explaining it in whole(?).

Because it came after a period of thought and design called "modernism". There is no other reason.

Well, they are also pretty fixated on modernism and being opposed to it.

[Reelya]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair

The Sokal affair, also called the Sokal hoax, was a publishing hoax perpetrated by Alan Sokal, a physics professor at New York University. In 1996, Sokal submitted an article to Social Text, an academic journal of postmodern cultural studies. The submission was an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor and, specifically, to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies – whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross – [would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions".

The article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity", was published in the Social Text Spring/Summer 1996 "Science Wars" issue. It proposed that quantum gravity is a social and linguistic construct. At that time, the journal did not practice academic peer review and it did not submit the article for outside expert review by a physicist. On its date of publication (May 1996), Sokal revealed in Lingua Franca that the article was a hoax, identifying it as "a pastiche of left-wing cant, fawning references, grandiose quotations, and outright nonsense...structured around the silliest quotations [by postmodernist academics] he could find about mathematics and physics".

"Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity" proposed that quantum gravity has progressive political implications, and that the "morphogenetic field" could be a cutting-edge theory of quantum gravity (a morphogenetic field is a concept proposed by Rupert Sheldrake that Sokal characterized in the affair's aftermath as "a bizarre New Age idea").[2] Sokal wrote that the concept of "an external world whose properties are independent of any individual human being" was "dogma imposed by the long post-Enlightenment hegemony over the Western intellectual outlook".

After referring skeptically to the "so-called scientific method", the article declared that "it is becoming increasingly apparent that physical 'reality'" is fundamentally "a social and linguistic construct". It went on to assert that because scientific research is "inherently theory-laden and self-referential", it "cannot assert a privileged epistemological status with respect to counterhegemonic narratives emanating from dissident or marginalized communities" and that therefore a "liberatory science" and an "emancipatory mathematics", spurning "the elite caste canon of 'high science'", needed to be established for a "postmodern science [that] provides powerful intellectual support for the progressive political project".

[Tiruin]

Not so with postmodernism: "if we don't use the big words, it wouldn't be 'profound' anymore, now would it?"

But that's veiled ignorance! Keeping up mystique, in other words! D:
Why should something be profound when it is always better to understand it-and by that, appreciate it all the more?

PPE: Ah.

[misko27]

So you find fat girls attractive?

Depends. I've seen a lot of fat girls, women, and people in general, and they run the gamut from "is slightly rounder then the average person" to "struggles to pass through subway doors".

Some were very attractive. Others, no.

[Tiruin]

...Ok I've looked at the context and..
What.

The whole basis is assuming out the answers instead of finding out what the real and specific motives are.
And seriously, generalizing people? What kind of thinking is that (unless the question in the post above mine speaks about aesthetic reasons-wherein it makes partial sense).

But what I mean is: I really don't think thinking can be that shallow, as well as answers to those things.

[AlleeCat]

So you find fat girls attractive?

Depends. I've seen a lot of fat girls, women, and people in general, and they run the gamut from "is slightly rounder then the average person" to "struggles to pass through subway doors".

Some were very attractive. Others, no.

Some people can make their weight look good on them. I actually find Jesse Cox to be fairly attractive, despite him being overweight and out of shape. It really varies from person to person, and I've actually dated two "fat chicks", myself.

[Dutchling]

Well, whatever sinks your ship, I suppose~

[LeoLeonardoIII]

OK but what if you code in Java for example, and then when you start dabbling in C one day Java reads your emails and finds out about C and gets all jealous. Would it be any different if C were a feminist programming language?

[Redzephyr01]

What the heck do computer programing and Feminism have to do with each other?