Exactly: people like @shanley and @ashedryden make money by polarizing and then profiting from the resulting flames of their gender argument, and so vigorously resist even talking to those that they accuse and condemn. It's the type of narcissistic intolerance that is rarely seen in such pure form.

The logic here is rather straightforward: to a 'stage4' narcissist, their opinions are the functional equivalent of absolute truths, and therefore it is sacrilegious to even imply that they be 'open for debate'. So if anyone persists in challenging one of their sermons,that person is either grossly ignorant (solution => RTFM) OR is intentionally 'attacking' or 'harassing' (because there is no gray area to debate for the histrionically 'self-deified' -- it's impossible to debate across parallel 'Absolutes' -"God does not play dice";)

Heck, at this stage of ferment, she is all but accusing (the almost freakishly fair minded) Chad of misogyny :D

And it's worse for those without a monetary connection: https://twitter.com/shanley/status/474265272660942848

P.S. SK: a bit of advice: don't look a gift horse in the mouth (good wine and a menagerie of stuffed animals are not cheap in SF ;)

My advice to GitTip: 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'. You had a great year, so proceed cautiously with any systemic changes, and error on the side of transparency. Keep conversations as open as possible because the real solution to 'Bad' Speech -- is more speech.

The only exception to that rule is personally threatening language, which should not be tolerated at all. And only a coward would resort to that low level of action.

But with that being said lets not construe honest disagreements that are substantiated with reasons -- as a personal attack or a cause to feel 'threatened'.

And as far as funding goes: except for clear cases of fraud, let people decide for themselves where they want their money to go -- and let transparency take care of the rest :)

P.S. They are using flame throwers on twitter about this thread -- when they should be replying here :D (twitter is a better place to polarize with out of context 'headlines')

I don't agree that any of that is a problem. It's not their responsibility to help you do the right thing any more than it's a (again with the theme) QA person's job to teach the programmer proper coding practice. Separation of concerns, if you will.

If we go on with your analogy, QA report would look as follows: "Your piece of shit program burned down the whole fucking server farm, you useless assclown! You belong in jail!", where the real bug was maybe a crash. That's not a good, or even acceptable QA report, I'd say.

Look, if you think saying "men are rapists" is not a problem, there's not much to discuss here. Before that point I had my doubts - okay, they're self-righteous hateful hypocrites, but maybe they're right? I DO know there are problems that women face - maybe they know something I don't, and I should try harder and listen to them?

After that I just noped out.

And, BTW, their inability to reflect on their action, admit mistakes and apologize is another huge red flag. (I haven't seen any examples, at least - please let me know if you have any, I'd be very glad to see them)

And FWIW, I didn't downvote you.

Repeated errors have certainly received bug reports of a similar tone. In the context of QA I'd say that saying someone belongs in jail would be seen as humor and sarcasm, so that part doesn't really hold for me.

That said, I really don't see any nuance or indication that you were an ally before someone said "men are rapists," tbh. "Men are rapists" is an extreme statement, but "hateful hypocrites" isn't. Gotcha.

If you're going to "nope out" that easily, maybe you don't have much to offer. I don't know, you just sound like you're lecturing people in absentia. "Admit your mistake!" the principal says. Reading some Foucault might help here.

Most QA reports do not end in "fuck you fuck you stop talking to me" for good reasons.

And that's why metaphors are leaky abstractions.