I think you're dismissing this based on your own prejudices about feminism and not the actual content. Thinking about what it would be to apply a certain perspective to a know field is not the same as denouncing all the existing computing field.
This research has parallels with Moldbug/Yarvin's Urbit[1], which also tries to challenge the existing paradigms in computing, but because it uses the "feminism" word, HN is incapable of having an adult discussion about the topic.
The response in this thread would be disappointing if it wasn't so thoroughly predictable.
I think you're dismissing the perfectly good responses that this thread has received. I know we have this big narrative about how any discussion of feminism on HN has to be a horror show, but it's in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy if everyone keeps repeating it. (I admit to being entirely guilty of this in my own comment, and I shall try to avoid doing it again).
Quite a few people have responded to this thread saying that they don't understand the OP, but the same is true of the thread about Urbit. I've been pleasantly surprised by how many of the people responding have done so in a reasonable way, stating their disagreement or their incomprehension in a way that invites someone to help explain the concepts in more detail rather than outright dismissing the possibility that there's something of value here.
I think it was deliberately chosen because the effort is about directly applying theories of models of reality and use of language from feminist theory to programming languages, not because the word is "loaded".
Comments
I think you're dismissing this based on your own prejudices about feminism and not the actual content. Thinking about what it would be to apply a certain perspective to a know field is not the same as denouncing all the existing computing field.
This research has parallels with Moldbug/Yarvin's Urbit[1], which also tries to challenge the existing paradigms in computing, but because it uses the "feminism" word, HN is incapable of having an adult discussion about the topic.
The response in this thread would be disappointing if it wasn't so thoroughly predictable.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6438320
I think you're dismissing the perfectly good responses that this thread has received. I know we have this big narrative about how any discussion of feminism on HN has to be a horror show, but it's in danger of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy if everyone keeps repeating it. (I admit to being entirely guilty of this in my own comment, and I shall try to avoid doing it again).
Quite a few people have responded to this thread saying that they don't understand the OP, but the same is true of the thread about Urbit. I've been pleasantly surprised by how many of the people responding have done so in a reasonable way, stating their disagreement or their incomprehension in a way that invites someone to help explain the concepts in more detail rather than outright dismissing the possibility that there's something of value here.
Fair enough; I didn't want to disparage the reasonable comments that this thread has (particularly yours).
Using "feminism" is a poor choice; I suspect that it was deliberately chosen because it's a loaded word.
I think it was deliberately chosen because the effort is about directly applying theories of models of reality and use of language from feminist theory to programming languages, not because the word is "loaded".