StackOverpozz Isn’t Very Welcoming. It’s Time for That to Change

What a racist, misogynistic, and homophobic thing to say. Do you hate women, LGBT folks, and people of color, user?

because I love you! uwu

also, I don't mind them wanting to make things nicer, but this has social justice and progressive stack stuff written all over it.
How many times is this going to happen? First FreeBSD now this. Why can't people promote positivity and niceness without subtly implying that all white males are evil and oppressing the women and blacks in the process??

Attached: shota_due_by_laidus-d46hkgj.png (761x823, 466.47K)

Why can't people promote positivity and niceness without subtly implying that all white males are evil and oppressing the women and blacks in the process??

Because cuntiness is a dish best served implied.

Attached: 1524792860-1.jpg (1071x599, 174.95K)

It's all so tiresome.

A missed opportunity?

Literally feels over reals, kek.

I'm seeing it everywhere among pozzed social media maven types recently, especially paired with "trans", as in "trans folks." I don't know why it has become so prevalent compared to "people" or "persons" among the stretched-earlobe neon-hair set recently, but I've noticed it, too.

Uh oh. You know what happens when you assume. Check out the image in the post above yours. The only thing he's developing is a low T-cell count.

Actually, I do hate these groups. Their constant politicizing have made my life a living hell of paranoia and constant worry. I avoid them like the plague, lest I get accused of rape, sexual harrassment or racism or whatever and have my life ruined as a result. In my country, a woman's word is proof.

Stackoverflow isn't meant to be about people though. It's about questions and answers, and they should be interesting. Shitty questions generate one-liner answers quoting docs; they're only tolerable because SO is usually a better and more usable site than whatever docs are being quoted. If I read a question and it's not interesting enough to make me do the research for the asker, it should be downvoted and/or quite probably be closed.

yes I'm stupid

Attached: 1433799590.2215632.png (792x588, 7.69K)

Speaking of words, I recently heard that the word "dude" is being imbued with negative connotations: think "angry white dudes." As you can see, the author of that piece has used it in that very self-deprecatory manner too.

I know! >_<
I hope they don't try to infect seL4 or Genode. Those are projects I really want to see succeed and I'd hate to see them get taken over..

Dude always had negative connotations to me due to the uneducated people who typically use the word. It makes me picture the speaker as some beavis/butthead type.

(In fact, one can venture even further and consider how the very ubiquity of the "as an X, I think that..." introduction is an ominous sign, seeing how it implies relevance and primacy of point of view over factual contents of one's claims, allowing to, for instance, silence a factual argument by deflecting it into identity of its issuer: "you are a white man, therefore you cannot speak about blacks/women/gays/whoever". But then, this is not a sociolinguistics board.)

Only more telling that the author of that entry felt the need to use it towards himself.

It's been around a while. It's more warm and friendly than alternatives. It's like how they start a post with "So, like, ". Using "folks" everywhere masks both the circus-tent degeneracy in their camp as well as the absolute hatred they have for you as a "white folk".

This -- beginning with "so" -- is actually an attempt to gain legitimacy and agreement at expense of another person. It's fucking unfair and fucking awful. It implies that whatever one says somehow follows logically from what the other person has or would have said. It

1. implies that whatever bullshit you say, it is somehow logically consistent with my own position, so it is inconsistent for me to contradict or correct you,
3. implies that you are a logically-minded person, so to have internalized logical operations thus,
3. implies that whatever you are going to say was a novel insight, and
4. places the implied burden of initiating the entire exchange on me, as it implies a logical follow-up to something I had said in the past, because you lack the confidence to interrupt people around you and say whatever you want to say independently.

It's dishonest, cowardly and altogether awful. It's like upspeak and like upspeak, it is no wonder that its users are women.

das rite

Attached: folx.png (1200x900 659.2 KB, 172.68K)

This is another awful manner of manipulation. If one person makes a ridiculous request -- literally "gibsme" -- then other people are often taken aback and sooner assume their own ignorance than the other person's fucking arrogance. A white person will sooner assume their ignorance of some super-extra-racist atrocities of their vaguely-defined ancestors, which the other person knows about and on basis of which they are supposed to pay up, than the requester's fucking shamelessness.

True. I realized after I'd sent my first posts that I missed this aspect of repeated use in that article of the word "experience." It compels users not to think in terms of questions and answers first, it is a plea to empathize. It demands a split attention, paid both to research and to "inclusiveness." Except the man is simply wrong: you can't have both at the same time. He mentioned limited resources that his company has to solve (real or unreal) problems, yet he demands the opposite from his users: to dedicate equal amount of time and effort to both of those aspects of communication. This can't be done, not to mention politeness only pleases its direct recipient, while good research serves all.

(It could be argued, of course, that the increased and diversified participation he is hoping to achieve will outweigh the diminished amount of contributions consumed by efforts to be polite and welcoming and all that crap, except... it won't. People who care about politeness, especially people who are passively put off by lack of it rather than show it actively... simply don't contribute a lot. This is an empirical reality which he is, of course, ignoring.)

(In fact, even I had just empathized with a polite impulse to reply to you, , just because you had replied to my humorous post, and as a result I produced two subpar replies that I am unhappy with. This is what one -- or rather, a website -- gets with empathetic users. Shit posts.)

The bigger problem is that they so often mention that something is a "possible duplicate", but it fucking isn't. Makes it hard to actually find answers.

You made me search

just to learn about this problem.

Politics aside: they want to optimize the "experience" for new people who ask low effort stupid questions without even trying to think first, as opposed to the "experience" of the experts who actually answer hard questions nobody else would touch.

To these experts, the stupid questions are just noise. By trying to filter tags I didn't want to answer, I ended up filtering out all questions in the programming language I was interested in. The type of question I like answering the most are those questions nobody usually cares about, the ones about the implementation itself, those "why are things this way" questions. I usually have to dig up the relevant code in the repository and I end up learning a LOT in the process.

Make a competing site that still values research and question and answer quality over pandering to lazy users. Call it SlackOvertow.

I could delete my 5k rep account, but it will hamper my chances to get a good job. That sucks.

Yeah, and in general it's an indirect way of speaking, which is more feminine. I see a lot of corporate tech men picking up feminine speaking traits because they don't want to be confrontational. So whenever you ask these guys a question on the net they start off like "okay, so, it's like this" or something instead of starting off with declaratives.

I once heard a person say "you kinda broke the rules." They at the same time tried to exert authority and soften their delivery. This is not how it works.

source of the photo on the left?

It's a very politician way of speaking. By speaking indirectly, you avoid stating things directly. It seems obvious, but it's a very powerful concept. By not stating facts, you avoid being proven wrong, you avoid accusing people.

Also, this is simply hoping to evoke nonverbality in verbal communication. It's basically the same as emoticons (or has this word been completely supplanted by "emojis" now). The speaker wants to make their recipient empathize with them by making them remember phenomena that face to face, serve to secure favor and mild treatment: facial expressions, hesitation, capturing attention, reducing literalness and exactness of communication by means of "like," and so on.

caldronpool.com/white-people-born-not-human-yall-taught-demons/

some of her wisdom

web.archive.org/web/20180427043428/https://wearyourvoicemag.com/identities/race/white-people-blacklivesmatter-protests

This is the basis of countless behaviors you'll see leftists embrace. Sarcasm, intonation, figures of speech, connotation, implication, allusion, all of those serve to express one thing while allowing the speaker to safely deny it, "that's not at all what I meant."

so this was a frame from this video youtube.com/watch?v=C2tQathSxpg
right?

It's almost like "positivity and niceness" is only the excuse used by leftists to take over.

Could not be, the video has shit video quality and the photo is obviously better & sharper.
Confess, where did you found it? I want the sauce.
The page only links to the video, can't see the photo. Even though I allowed all images in uMatrix.

Some of the we wuz kangz nigs even go as far as to claim we descend from wolves and had sex with them on some websites.

Not that I have many accomplishments to speak of myself, but imagine being as nondescript a person as to only be able to describe yourself as a "cultural producer." That's actually literally sad.

Hmm actually there's one image, but it's also shit quality, not like in

oh you meant where that specific picture came from? Idk I just searched for "white folx pay me" and it popped

yes, that's what I mean. it's got higher visual resolution than the video.

and before you roast me:
I'd normally search myself, but my image searching extension broke down today for some reason and Google also doesn't allow my IP to search images without logging in. I surely do not want to associate this shit with my somewhat normie-friendly account.

use Yandex or Tineye

chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/image-search-options/kljmejbpilkadikecejccebmccagifhl
addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/image-search-options/

Thanks for the FF addon link, I were using a different one, yours is likely better.

This. Every time I see any of those Codes and Covenants and other crap, I just think how much more hostile such communities must be compared to those whose greeting page says "stfu you fag and post your code."

It reminds me of shitposters whose twitter profile is like "professional headpatter, 88th degree meme weaver" except they're being serious and people take them seriously.

That sounds hilarious.

oh yeah.
actually I feel the most welcome when there are no restrictions and everyone can roast everyone and it's just normal behavior. things like imageboards and cock ML.
it just seems more honest, and also most of the times people won't be stupid and call you shit without any reason anyway.
when there's a CoC, I am always scared that someone will try to use it to try to ban me from everywhere if they figure out my identity on other services as well, even if I do nothing wrong, or even call me a rapist and send me to jail. this constant fear is oppressing me… it's almost like living in Russia.

O-OwO?

Attached: headpats.jpg (500x645, 36.95K)

Please don't read the following as a direct indictment of any of such groups, but in a way, morality is most conspicuous to the immoral. In a way, the immoral always live morality, on one pole of its continuum or another. People who have no technical ability are nonetheless by human nature compelled to participate in communities, and moral issues such as moderating communication are the only subjects that are visible and accessible to them. (I am in such a position myself.) Morality, enforcing or defining it, is the most universal manner of participation; everyone can do it. But technically able people outgrow it naturally as it stops appealing to them one way or another; they find satisfaction in, well, programming, creating. Among technical people, the likelihood of finding it exciting to leverage the subject of morality, either for good or for bad, is basically zero. But among nontechnical people, it is 50/50. They quite literally have nothing else in their lives.

What relevant trips so nearly missed...

Poor discourse is not entirely caused by political dishonesty, though. Educated people also fall into this trap. This is born of a desire to be less wrong. The less you say, the less certainty you project, the less exposed to counterarguments you will be.

matt.might.net/articles/shell-scripts-for-passive-voice-weasel-words-duplicates/

This is dumb. I barely see anything irrelevant regarding questions and answers. Most of the time it is simply something asking why a question was closed, generally it's labelled as off-topic or dupe. I've never, and that's a true use of the word, seen any kind of prejudice on StackOverflow. The dude is fishing for a job.

No they don't.

What did you just say?

(Also, I shouldn't have said this. Not because it isn't true, but because, as I described in , one's personal circumstances and experiences have zero relevance to the strength of one's argument, while my phrasing has just implied otherwise. It's hard to shake off societally acquired habits.)

Nice list.

Yes, unfalsifiability is a real thing, but unfalsifiability is never harmful in itself; it always comes with connotation, connotation of very particular (if false) things. Spiritual bullshitters prattling about reality or consciousness would not be listened to if their meaningless words didn't nonetheless connote whatever it is that their audience wants to hear -- that there are other things in life than thinking, that they can fix their lives by wishful thinking, that it is okay if they stop caring, that they will live after death, whatever.

Why does the website in your link contain such utter shit formatting? Looks like it was designed for phones and doesn't adapt to real computers. Everything is squashed into a small column on the left side of the screen.

Ask the author of the site, not me...

You're on Zig Forums, you should know just as well if not better.

(A special, and arguably most egregious case of this is connotation paired with tautology: "it's bad to worry excessively." Once you learn to recognize it in all of its forms, you will never stop being amazed how ubiquitous it is.)

(Wanted to also link to .)

This too, I've never seen any such thing.

To reeducation with you.

Those kinds of jokes don't help with the insane mentality presented in the OP. If the snowflakes are vocal about their positions, why is vocal and active opposition missing from these kinds of attacks?

This tbh. Zig Forums should engage in raids against ShitOverflow.

I am only asking that if the minority are more vocal, then why is the majority not putting its collective foot down and stomping out the madness by speaking out more itself against these ridiculous behaviors?

Because the majority are gentle, timid creatures who only want to tend to their projects.

I think it's a "someone else will do it" mentality. They think that since they don't agree with this kind of bullshit that someone else surely will speak up against it and they won't have to.

> archive.fo/Jv2jh
ftfy

Nobody wants to put their neck on the line. Especially after leftists have infiltrated all sections of society and are already in positions of power.

The list is ever growing of good, positive words that liberalism has rendered negative. Elitism, judgement, prejudice, generalization, discrimination...

Has this guy ever heard of liars?

What planet do you live on? There are plenty of people who won't even rubberneck at the crash that are "leftists". People just want to be allowed to have a platform that welcomes their contribution and allows them to interact with other contibutors. They do not want these impeded. People aren't putting their necks on the line when they stop using a platform. No puts their neck on the line when they encourage their friends and families to leave a platform.

TL;DR? Does it mean that pajeet will have an easy way to get their work done?

I've always tried to avoid that site tbh. Just don't like the places that score comments with points and whatnot. Only site where I tolerated that was slashdot, because I'd been reading it since the early days before they added moderation, but I bailed out once they set anonymous comments to default at -1 and fucked up the interface so you need javascript to not end up with a fubar interface.

I do not want the contributions of others to be welcomed if the contributions are shitty. Lots of leftists accept code from trannies and women which is of low quality.
Leftists censor "hate speech".

Lots of places with "voting" on comments are shit. (see: reddit, pozzoverflow). The only place I can think of which has voting and isn't total shit is Voat, but it is still inferior to imageboards, in my opinion.

100% CANCER
GAS FROM ORBIT

Attached: смерть мерзкая от наркотиков гроб гроб кладбище пидор.jpg (784x627, 148.12K)

>all those comments on (((Hacker News))) about the rampant autism on part of those with high rep points and "muh PozzOverflow isn't designed for discussio!"
archive.fo/sC9j9

I feel like elaborating.

before liberalism: wanting high quality from other people
after liberalism: baselessly finding oneself superior and wishing to hurt the rest

before liberalism: sound reasoning
after liberalism: wishing to hurt another person

before liberalism: early awareness of nature of something
after liberalism: the state of refusing to find anecdotal counter-evidence relevant

before liberalism: the product of observation and learning
after liberalism: the same, but somehow completely vilified

before liberalism: wanting and discerning quality, perceptiveness
after liberalism: the state of having acted on a generalization

If someone makes a shitty post, do you not have the right to tell them "lurk moar" without having some snake come up and bite you in the ass?
What's your point?

How long has this been? Sounds like that place has gone to shit. Too many non-news articles bumped to the top. Too many negative-Nancies running around inflicting damage.

we're very close to this

I know. That's why I am asking why the majority don't get up and do something about it.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here, either in my post or yours.
Yes. I don't want shitty contributions to be welcomed.
You said that people just want to be able to interact with other contributors. I said that leftists do not provide this. (Neither do right wing sites, though).

To elaborate on my last sentence: Yes, leftist sites allow interaction, but anything "offensive" to them is nitpicked. Slightly right wing sites allow much more interaction in my opinion. Places like Zig Forums are a bit similar to leftist sites in that lots of things are unacceptable, but the things that Zig Forums doesn't like are different from the things leftists don't like.

SO replaces aspirations to quality with aspirations to diversity, speaks lowly of curtailing chitchat, demanding adherence to rules, searching before posting, preformatting questions, implies women and PoC-s are being "marginalized."

Ok. Again, what is your point? How does anything you have said address my initial concern of why the majority of people do not confront the imposed tyranny by a vocal minority?

What is moderation on Zig Forums-like boards compared to, say, Reddit? Do you actually get banned/deleted for expressing opposing opinions, or just for making actual low-effort threads? (In fact, Zig Forums-s may be a bit of exception among boards because it appears that they're quite activist and don't merely passively discuss events; thus, the consequences of largely permitting unmoderated thread creation are correspondingly greater.)

Reminder that Stack Overflow is co-founded by a kike named Joel Spolsky and still leads the company.

It doesn't. I misunderstood your post so just ignore everything I said.

Lurk moar.

Zig Forums is right again

I don't know exactly when the -1 shit happened. I think they started adding moderation around 2000-2001 or so, and it was still usable then because every post started out at 0, and the interface was fine with just Lynx or other plain HTML browser.
I guess maybe 5 years later or so they fucked up the interface and also made anonymous comments start at -1. That means they were effectively invisible since the default visibility threshold is 0, unless you got an account and changed your settings.

How is lurking supposed to show me the extent of moderation, you idiot? Do you expect me to refresh a board minutely enough to actually notice threads and posts disappearing as they are being deleted? If anything, you should have said "post moar," so to get moderated on the way.

Don't be naive. Openly contradicting the narrative can be fatal for your career. These people will call your employer and try to get you fired. Your non-verbal communication will also be scrutinized if you are notorious in your field. Sometimes they will even do it randomly. Honestly, it is quite hard to predict these people. The politically-correct dictators will pick up on the fact you left a site immediately after an inclusiveness push and they will draw conclusions that may prove to be fatal for your reputation.

How do you expect me to know, then?
No, I will not encourage the creation of shitty posts and threads intended only to trigger the mods and show you the level of moderation.
Also
Guess you're fucking new here then.