As a side note, I would like to clarify that my view on the issue is: A) Not relevant to the point I'm bringing up; and B) Not the same as Batista's. However, nor is it the same as anyone else’s in this discussion. (It's worrying that I have to clarify this for fear of being down-voted like him. I should not have to sit here and worry that I will get branded a sexist for not just mindlessly hitting down-vote on him. This is a horrible trend that needs to stop.)

I'll be down-voted myself anyway for even daring to defend someone’s right to express their opinion however. You get given a down-vote at a high karma so that you can use it against spammers and not just to use it on people you disagree with.

So god damn it learn to argue with people properly instead of just trying to silence them.

Edit: Also, down-voting people as you disagree with them verbally is like gagging them whilst you debate them. It doesn't convince anyone, it just angers them and sets them in their ways more.

As an example, from their first post, they suggest that it's not legitimate to worry about this sort of problem because larger problems exist. This form of argument is not only blindly hypocritical (that is, if the arguer believed it, they would not be engaging in the subdebate but rather be working to resolve the larger problem) but intrinsically ridiculous -- it supposes that it's not legitimate to discuss any issue while "worse" problems persist. It's a self-defeating argument on a specialized forum like HN, and utilizing it indicates that someone isn't actually arguing the topic at hand (in a sense, it's a "universal" argument, and thus like nonfalsifiable theories, completely irrelevant).

They then literally compare their own downvoting to the Salem witch trials (the irony of which is beyond belief, and further calls into question their sincerity), and additionally claim that proportion of women in tech is "not a serious issue in its manifestation or it's consequences at all", and when pressed that many people disagree, compare people who care about workplace sexism to hypochondriacs in order to marginalize their beliefs (this is particularly poisonous and a clear indicator that they're not interested in the viewpoints of others). They also fall into a really standard "I'm just expressing my opinion" backtrack, which is particularly ironic given that their initial complaint was that people were expressing their opinion on this topic rather than doing something more worthwhile.

Regardless of their viewpoint, they're not participating in reasonable intellectual discourse. We're not obligated to argue with someone who's plainly not interested in having an actual argument, and the up/down-voting is working as it should in this instance (I'm certainly not saying it works as it should in all instances, but this is pretty clear).

Which I am. I have a somewhat popular blog in my language on the "larger problems", and am member of several political groups on those issues. I also comment on HN on larger issues, when the topic warrants it.

What strikes me as idiotic is seeing people blogging about the "horrible problem of sexism" (what's more with examples like some programming convention where some presenter has a scantily clad girl in the slides, or the "that's what she said" jokes, or some poster on some hackathon that mentioned pretty waitresses --i.e bs--), whereas the same people and blogs never seem to mention any problem of more importance.

>but intrinsically ridiculous -- it supposes that it's not legitimate to discuss any issue while "worse" problems persist.

If your house was on fire, it would be ridiculous to discuss the fading color of the fence or that you have to mow the lawn. Without priorities, discussing problems by itself is idiotic. This very notion of yours gave rise to the concept of "first world problem", I concept with which I fully agree.

>They then literally compare their own downvoting to the Salem witch trials (the irony of which is beyond belief, and further calls into question their sincerity)

I fail to see the irony. Is it because the victims of the witch trials were women, and I (according to your reading) said something against women? I thought the message from the Salem witch trials was: "do not burn/beat/abuse/downvote people about how they conduct themselves and think" ("[the first accused] was described as not living a puritan lifestyle for she wore black clothing and odd costumes which was against the puritan code").

>and additionally claim that proportion of women in tech is "not a serious issue in its manifestation or it's consequences at all"

Am I not allowed to think that? Or is it only that I'm not allowed to make that claim?

What are the serious repercussions of less women in tech? Are there also serious repercussions of less women in the myriads of jobs there are less women? Or of less men in the myriads of jobs where there are less men?

Most women are not fascinated with shiny blinking gadgets and Star Trek, so they don't tend to choose a career path with the same criteria as men. Women took the smart path and chose biology --where the future big money are--, instead of sweating it coding mongo clients in node.js for 14 hours a day to maybe win the startup lottery.

I'd be much more worried about people who WANT and CANT be in tech (like the homeless, the poor, etc), rather than people that have the option and chose not to.

You have this a-priory theory based on ideals (and not empirical evidence) that women must necessarily be equally inclined to select an IT BSc, so you have to blow things like "sexism in IT" out of proportion to justify it not being so. As if, men and women in high school applying for college already know how it is working in an IT shop or in a startup, and that it includes sexism.

>They also fall into a really standard "I'm just expressing my opinion" backtrack, which is particularly ironic given that their initial complaint was that people were expressing their opinion on this topic rather than doing something more worthwhile.

Now, my initial complaint was that people were expressing their opinion on this topic rather than EXPRESSING THEIR OPINION on something more worthwhile. But even if it was what you mention, I still fail to see the irony.

You could be right or wrong in doing so, but there's absolutely no irony in trying to get people to stop complaining about what you consider a non-issue and doing something more worthwhile instead. For, as you see it:

Complaining about non issue: no benefit to society. Complaining about people complaining about non issue: the benefit of getting people back to real issues.

>Regardless of their viewpoint, they're not participating in reasonable intellectual discourse. We're not obligated to argue with someone who's plainly not interested in having an actual argument, and the up/down-voting is working as it should in this instance (I'm certainly not saying it works as it should in all instances, but this is pretty clear).

Actually you're just taking the easy way out and misread my arguments with prejudice. On top, it's you who are not interested in conversation. Noticed how ALL of your arguments are about my argumentation as argumentation (i.e meta) and NONE OF THEM is about my argumentation as substance? I.e you nitpick my argumentation style, but you never add a counter-claim. Probably because you already think what you believe on the matter to be some sort of immutable physical law.

That is, I gave several arguments, talked about nurture, statistical preferences for other fields, how (any) sexism in the workplace is not known to those applying for college IT, and still women are less there, etc. What have YOU counter-argued on the matter?

Your "priorities" excuse is exactly the same as other peoples "first world problems" excuse. Saying nobody can ever have a problem because someone somewhere is dying of something. It's just ridiculous to assume that everyone should stop caring about everything because there is a much bigger problem somewhere. If that was the case nothing would ever get done/changed.

Little things matter to people. You can't just ignore them. Even if you think someone is overreacting when they come complaining to you. If you're their boss and it's about a workplace issue then it's your responsibility to make things better for everyone. Otherwise you're just going to be left with unproductive, resentful workers. And that ignores the possibility that you might listen and understand why they are concerned. (Which you know, you should do...)

He's being downvoted not because of his opinion, but because of the way he chose to present it. And, he's whining about downvotes. Read what he's writing. It's downright rude.

> I'll be down-voted myself anyway for even daring to defend someone’s right to express their opinion however.

No, and suggesting such is fairly dramatic. However, the fact that you spend 2 paragraphs on the "plight" of your posts' voting trend is pointless.

> So god damn it learn to argue with people properly instead of just trying to silence them.

Learn to discuss matters like an adult, and you won't have this issue.

> Also, down-voting people as you disagree with them verbally is like gagging them whilst you debate them.

IIRC, your vote doesn't count if the person is responding to you, or you are replying to them. So, enhance your calm.

Can you point to the rude parts? Or is that too much to ask?

>Learn to discuss matters like an adult, and you won't have this issue.

Actually most of the discussion on the issue is like that of touchy 20 year olds.

Adults dont "down-vote" on disagreement.

So, you accuse the other guy of being rude, but when asked to give a specific example, you resort to platitudes and generalities. Thanks for the mature contribution.

Sorry, I tried to verify that, but it looks like it is your comment, the one mentioning an immature brat, that sounds at least very arrogant and condescending, if not rude. I honestly fail to notice such qualities or insults in batista's comments down the thread after yours (although complaints about being downvoted he certainly could omit). Though it might be my insufficient understanding of language or culture, so I'd be grateful if you point out the offending parts.

Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista. Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured.

When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion. From his further replies, I'm sure of it. Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that. And if he's not at a discussion site to have an actual discussion, downvoting seems entirely reasonable to me.

Noticed how you equate the issue of sexism with evolution theory?

To imply, of course, that those that happen to disagree about the importance of sexism are NUTS, and that the importance of sexism in keeping women away from IT is as indisputable as a scientific theory.

So much for YOU coming here "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view".

So, when you say that the ideal is for one to come to a discussion "to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view", you only mean it for those with opposing views.

Because YOUR view is a priori as irrefutable as evolution --your simile--.

>When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion.

Let me see.

1) I come in the discussion with an opposing view.

2) You held that I'm akin to someone coming to an evolution discussion with an opposing view --i.e a nutjob arguing against science.

3) I provide several arguments, mention some logical explanations about how things could not be so, etc.

4) Instead of replying in specifics, you resort to ad-hominens. Batista this, and Batista that.

5) Notice how all your message above is devoice of specifics, even on the meta-level of discussing my comments:

= = = = =

"Personally, I'm going with both A and B for Batista."

No mentioning why.

"Some people come to a sexism discussion like fundies come to an evolution discussion. The point isn't to learn something and perhaps come away with a new view. It's to argue until the other people go find something better to do, so that the arguer can feel victorious and avoid having their bubble punctured."

No mention of how that applies to Batista, plus the vulgar comparison of anyone disagreeing with the current topic to someone disagreeing with evolution/science.

"When Batista jumped in with a standard technique for derailing the discussion, I suspected he was not interested in actual discussion."

No mention of what that technique was. Saying something besides what everybody else says?

"From his further replies, I'm sure of it."

Again, no mention of specifics.

"Life's too short to waste time talking with people like that."

Again, no specifics as to what is "that".

= = = = =

And you have the nerve to say that it's me that "I'm not interested in conversation"?

Talk about blame the victim.

You're true on one thing, though: "life's too short to waste time talking with people like that".

Let's see: another ad-hominen insult, and still no specifics or counterarguments. Oh, and you managed to miss all of my arguments. And the problem is the length of my reply.

Yes, I can see how I am the nutjob for expressing an unpopular opinion (with arguments), and not being satisfied with just being called names for it. Nothing like the internet to give so considering, well spoken, and intellectually stimulating discussion partners such as you.

Since you took the liberty of calling me a nutjob, may I add an ad-hominen too? You are acting like an idiotic, PC, middle class American white man-boy. I'd take "nutjob" any day...

If you'd like to know my particular positions on this issue, I've commented plenty in this and related threads. If you have some particular sincere question (that is, a non-rhetorical question) about some view I have expressed, feel free to ask.

That would be "being off topic".

But what I did was being counter-general-HN-sentiment, which is different.

I replied on the same topic, added counter arguments (which few of my commenters did --instead, they kept it on the personal level, Batista this and Batista that, like here)

>- there's nothing insightful about that position (which just seems to mirror normative culture)

So, normative culture has nothing insightful to offer? Hundreds of millions of people beg to differ.

I'd rather say that it's the prevalent position that can be described as de facto normative, and the prevalent position on the thread happens to be the opposite of mine.

So, could a counter-position be insightful? Or is just nodding in agreement and adding another argument in favor of the prevalent thread position insightful?

>There are some statements that are just not worth arguing against and are tangential to the point of distraction.

And, as always, people fail to mention which. Or argue against them, since, as they claim, it's so "easy".

is this a technically solvable problem - if you downvote doyou then get your reply link taken away? Is this actually a problem or are downvoters different people to those who keep on arguing?