That was not an ad hominem attack, it was a request for you to stop talking over everyone else on a subject about which you've already demonstrated a considerable lack of awareness or insight. When you're spouting a stream of nonsense here, you are effectively excluding everyone else who might have something to say on the subject. This is not the Scott P Jones show. I happen to know that we've nearly lost several valuable community members because of your behavior, of which this thread is an prime example. There are probably numerous others who have been driven away. I've asked politely, and that didn't work, so now I'm afraid you've forced my hand: I've configured your posts here and on julia-dev to be moderated. They will only be allowed through if they are concise, on-subject, and constructive. For the sake of greater inclusiveness, it seems that you must be excluded, or at least somewhat muted.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 8:54 PM, Scott Jones <scott.paul.jo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 7:53:58 AM UTC-4, Stefan Karpinski wrote: >> >> Anthropomorphization is fine, sexualization is not. The main reason that >> using "she" to refer to Julia is not great is that the next thing is so >> often to sexualize the term, not because there's anything objectionable >> about anthropomorphizing Julia. For example, the Julia-tan anime >> character <http://www.mechajyo.org/wp/?page_id=6> is acceptable since it >> does imply sexual activity. >> > > I thought that Anthropomorphization was not fine, the JCS states clearly > "the programming language is not a person". > Julia-tan can represent a woman scientist/programmer, who happens to love > the julia language, and is not *necessarily* an anthropomorphism. > > >> That statement "the programming language is not a person and does not >> have a gender" makes perfect sense in any language. While a word may have a >> *grammatical* gender in a language, a programming language is not a >> word, and does not. This basic distinction between a word and what it >> refers to, is especially familiar to speakers of languages with grammatical >> genders since there is often a mismatch between grammatical gender and >> actual gender. For example, in German, "Mädchen" means "girl" but is a >> neuter word, rather than feminine. Do you think that Germans are confused >> about the actual gender of girls? To quote the wikipedia article about >> grammatical >> gender <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender>: >> >> In a few languages, the gender assignation of nouns is solely determined >>> by their meaning or attributes, like biological sex, humanness, animacy. >>> However, in most languages, this semantic division is only partially valid, >>> and many nouns may belong to a gender category that contrasts with their >>> meaning (e.g. the word for "manliness" could be of feminine gender). In >>> this case, the gender assignation can also be influenced by the morphology >>> or phonology of the noun, or in some cases can be apparently arbitrary. >> >> > That depends on how it is translated. In Spanish, "género" by itself > would generally mean grammatical gender, and you'd say "sexo", o possibly > "género natural", > which is why the current phrasing might not really be all that clear to > somebody whose first language is Spanish, for example. > I'm not saying that the point is wrong, just that it should be made > clearer, as other people have already agreed. > > Anyway, I think we've already heard plenty from Scott P. Jones on this >> subject. Please refrain from further commentary here, Scott – you've >> already said more than your share and you are literally the single most >> frequent violator of our community standards, having both made various >> sexual jokes about "Julia" and chronically wasting people's time, energy >> and patience. >> > > Please refrain from constant ad hominem attacks, here and on GitHub. They > definitely do not fit into the "*Be respectful and inclusive" *part of > the JCS. Threatening banning, deleting posts, defending other people who > make ad hominem attacks, as well as using sexual language in ad hominem > attacks (and never once apologizing) are definitely things that don't fit > the JCS at all. > >
