There’s also plenty of room in there for less malicious situations as well (not that the malicious ones you speak of aren’t happening…they are…but there’s other cases as well).

I think a lot of the problems arise based on differing expectations, and ideas about what a “conversation” entails.

Too often, it seems like a conversation means “let me voice my grievances, assign blame, and explain my ideas about why it’s like that and what should be done…and didn’t you dare to disagree with me or question anything or point out flaws in my logic, because this is my space!”

And hey, you’re free to do that…but that ain’t a conversation. Conversation means you don’t get to dictate the terms completely to everyone else.

I feel like those who do this do know, deep down, that they don’t want a conversation at all… but “everyone shut up, let me say my thing, then agree with me” tends to draw in a smaller audience. You might be right, you might be wrong, but, “Listen to me and don’t say anything I don’t like.” isn’t a conversation.

Telling a person wandering through the desert “I also get thirsty” maybe deflects from the issue at hand.

Or… That may be a show of support, in sharing of a common burden, a message of, “You are not alone in this struggle.”

Rather than always seeing it as a negative, maybe allow for the possibility that it’s coming from a different place.

Honestly, I feel like this whole sentiment of, “Don’t attempt to bring any context into a conversation. Only stick strictly to what one person has decided to talk about.” is not only counterproductive in that moment, but also in the medium and long term has a marked effect in shutting down future conversations about difficult and uncomfortable topics.

I mean, how many times does a person get into a conversation that starts with, “Can we talk about X?” or “Let’s have an open, honest discussion about Y?”…only to add something to that conversation and be told, “No, you’re wrong for bringing that up. We’re only talking about X and why it’s the worst thing ever.”… before they get to the point where the next time someone says, “Can we talk about Z?” they just say, “No, sorry. Not interested.”?

For me, while I get where the post is coming from, a lot of the narrative seems to revolve around the dynamic of:

“We need to have an open dialog about XYZ. Let’s have a conversation.”

“Okay, then here’s ABC for context, as a comparison to XYZ.”

“Actually I’m here to talk about XYZ, not ABC. And you’re the problem for not strictly limiting this open conversation to the specific scope I want to consider.”

Like… you can either ask for open discussion or you can say, “Everybody shut up and listen to what I have to say, and unless you’re opening your mouth to completely agree with me in every way, don’t bother because I’m not here for anything other than letting you all know what I think.”

I’m not saying that the points are wrong or bad, just that it’s a bad look to start out with talking about an interest in having a dialogue, then as soon as there’s any expansion of the scope of discussion, suddenly being unhappy that there’s thoughts different from where it started out, and playing the victim or worse, blaming whoever took the invitation for an open dialogue at face value and engaged in good faith.

Also, it’s not just targeted at people perceived as “other” in many of these traditionally masculine realms.

Often, it seems like so many of these men see patronizing and second guessing as the only ways to establish and defend their own credibility on their given subject. It’s not just the “oh it’s a woman/someone who doesn’t look the part…I bet they don’t know what they’re doing” factor, it’s also that they’re a product of the culture that tells them that the most important thing is that they’re perceived as more knowledgeable than anyone else, and that the only way to establish that is to have their own opinions and views on every subject in the field, and then aggressively defend and promote those views while dismissing, undermining, and discouraging any views that conflict with theirs…or the people who hold those views.

And it’s not just big picture “world view” type stuff. It’s crap like, “which brand makes the best widget in your hobby?”. If they’re a “brand red” guy, they feel the need to not only let everyone know that they like brand red…they have to let everyone know that brand red is the best, and that it’s objective, and that if you prefer brand blue, you’re just a clueless newbie who hasn’t learned yet. If you like brand green, well you’ve just been taken in by their marketing. And if you’re one of those brand orange people, well you know what they say about those people…

I don’t care about that so much as the hyper specificity of not only “you have to be on the political left here” but “being to the left isn’t enough, you need to be this far left, and hold these specific views on politics, technology, etc.”.

And the community that is here is, amazingly, somehow even worse than Reddit, on average, when it comes to being a hive mind that is wildly intolerant of any disagreement.

It occurred to us that CrowdStrike is an absolutely terrible name. It sounds like a terrorist attack. Of course, it felt like one on Friday.

When I first heard about what was going on, I assumed that “CrowdStrike” was not the name of the software/company, but rather some sort of advanced DDOS-like attack where they used systems they’d previously hacked and had them all do the same thing at once to another target.

Oh my god, there’s always a relevant xkcd.

Great job!

I gotta say, Google Maps has been getting squirrelly on me lately tho.

Most recently, I was out fishing and wanted to get directions to the other side of the lake and a parking area over there.

The road directions had me driving a little ways up the shore, then down a fucking footpath to the water, then swimming across the fucking lake, then getting on another road and driving to the parking area.

Half of the nation really wants someone like him to be president.

Not even half of likely voters.