I'm older now myself (closer to 40 than 50, but well past "young"), and I don't think I meant what you think I meant.

"I don't get the youth culture of today and don't like it: including PC oriented culture and other media specific ideas designed to focus perception."

"PC oriented culture" just seems like expecting people to treat everyone with respect, and I think that's an improvement. Our industry hasn't always been good at that, but it has nothing to do with productivity. The old-timer I talked about wasn't racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise an asshole...he just liked to be able to close his office door and think really hard about things. He worked well with others; treating the women and brown folks in the office just like anyone else. Why would that be a source of contention?

And, I have no idea what "other media specific ideas designed to focus perception" could possibly mean. I know all the words, but they don't add up to anything, as far as I can tell.

These were my comments alone as a 50 year old in addition to your narrative; not in correlation but in comparison.

PC in this context meaning behaviors for the sake of change willy-nilly (think about the injection of feminine instead of masculine pronoun that was|is fashionable). I see the mercurial aspect of PC culture as reactive and dismissive and dislike it intensely.

Everyone these days seem to have some form of progressive agenda and most change is packaged in some media that makes it seem innocuous and correct in an engaging and entertaining way that would have been nearly impossible when I was a young man. In fact(as McLuhan might say) the media is the message. Chomsky is quite insightful in my opinion as to how the medium and vocabulary restrict available concepts.

"think about the injection of feminine instead of masculine pronoun that was|is fashionable"

This seems to have settled, after a few years of mild confusion, on everyone agreeing to just use non-gendered "they/them" when the gender of the subject is unknown. Pretty easy, it has historical precedent, and it can't possibly exclude anyone from the conversation. Seems like progress, to me. Where's the harm in making your docs about everybody rather than just men?

I guess I just don't get the hostility toward inclusiveness as a value in our communities/companies/etc. It costs me literally nothing and might make someone else feel more welcome to participate in the things I'm working on. It just seems like a win with no down side.

You didn't tackle any of the real criticism in my message.

You remark on a discrete symptom (which is a precursor) and you affirm it's essential importance to your life without any historical consciousness. And that is my basic gripe with PC culture: sensitivity to every little thing that you feel hurts you or impairs you or makes you feel included. Hell is other people, get over yourselves.

I couldn't make much sense out of the rest of your comment; it seemed vague and a little paranoid. So, I latched onto the one concrete thing in your comment, assuming it was demonstrative of what you were criticising.

"sensitivity to every little thing that you feel hurts you or impairs you or makes you feel included. Hell is other people, get over yourselves."

That seems simple when you're white and male, and the entire industry (and much of the world) treats your existence within it as a default and correct thing. I try to assume honest intentions when someone tells me something I've said/done is hurtful, and try to remember not to say/do it again.

The backlash against "PC culture" just comes off as really entitled and overly sensitive, to me (which is, ironically the same thing anti-PC people accuse everyone else of being). I don't know how to resolve that clash. I, personally, want to be part of solutions to problems rather than an impediment.

I view the imbalance in our industry as a problem worth solving; welcoming more women and under-represented people of color into our industry as equals (even when it means making changes to how we do things and how we talk about things) is a net positive for everyone. It's just increasing the pool of talent devoted to solving the world's technical problems and that can't be bad.

But, it sounds like I still may not be understanding your position. Can you provide another concrete example of what you're talking about? I noted your preference for big-picture rather than details earlier, but I'm clearly not grasping the big picture you're drawing...I need more details to understand where you're coming from

You like to characterize as vague (or worse) what can be reasonably inferred or researched and have a knack for constructing positions by pleading ignorance: which makes it simpler when creating straw men and redirecting|reducing conversation scope.

You sound naive and well meaning but I think that is artifice. Your comments reflect the essentially reactive nature of the PC movement (to me) which is to reject what you find distasteful and inject whatever you believe in (edit: with no real historical consciousness).

Do you believe that experienced white men should be displaced (by default) by persons of color or women in a profession because of skill equivalency? Is there a ratio for that displacement? Is it based on merit or is it based on something else?