It's more than that. Playing devil's advocate means you're expressing the opposite point of view when you don't really hold that point of view, but you're doing it to prove a point.
Did I indicate anywhere that some people don't have the opposite, poorly formed opinion? I don't give a shit. If they try censorship, I say offend them even more until THEY accept that not everyone agrees with them.
But can you agree that these people complaining about tit jokes are not accepting many other people's opinion that tit jokes are funny and that people should be free to joke about them if they wish?
> But can you agree that these people complaining about tit jokes are not accepting many other people's opinion that tit jokes are funny and that people should be free to joke about them if they wish?
Hell no. This is standard derailing junk. It goes "my freedom to be an arsehole and drive people away is just as important as other people's desire to work in an arsehole-free environment." It's childish and inconsiderate.
> How so?
I leave it to you to work out what the petulant part of "I say offend them even more" is.
I am capable of disagreeing without resorting to abusive and threatening behaviour. While trying to understand what the other person is saying. Skills that you could learn.
Nowhere did I say that I "know what the whole group of Women is thinking". It's a bit ironic that you precede that with "Women find tit jokes funny" which could be interpreted as you saying that you in fact do know.
But I do know for a fact that some women, in fact some people do not find them funny. Which is what I did say.
Please prove to me that the majority of women or even a large portion are offended. Nobody has done that yet.
Furthermore, even if you could prove that - percentage has nothing to do with it. That is a completely arbitrary qualifier. Offending people is a birth given right. Get over it.
> Given the response that occurred in the media and in general...
The media is your measuring stick? The same media that regularly objectifies women in your opinion? That's rich. You should probably go think about that some more.
You and all the whiners just like you are the ones complaining about tit jokes, so you prove it.
Seeing as I never gave any opinion on the question of "Does "the media" regularly objectify women or not", it's irrelevant, despite you erroneously attributing that to me. It's a derailing tactic.
> Given the response that occurred in the media and in general...
So no, it's not a derailing tactic. And if you didn't notice, this thread is three pages to the right. There's nothing to derail.
When you're having a conversation in person, do you accuse them of being a Troll and derailing the conversation when they respond to your ridiculous assertions?
Give me a fucking break. This is like arguing with a three year old. OK fine, you can have the last word if it's so important to you. I've already torn apart every single point you think you've made, so fuck off.
If someone repeatedly said things in person like "Give me a fucking break" and "fuck off" and being generally disrespectful, while asserting that "I've already torn apart every single point you think you've made" and regularly misreading what's being said and failing to address the substantial point then yes, I would call them immature.
People on HN generally start off with a reasonable amount of respect from me - more so than Reddit or 4chan for instance. I've never seen anyone piss it away so rapidly before though.
Not to mention, there were a lot of arguments he made about not being concerned about being offended, then he got offended and started getting abusive. Ironic.
The screen literally just had tits. The whole point of the app was to look at tits. There was nothing else of a woman involved. They really did just take the "tits" part and exclude the rest!
I'm not talking about every guy on the planet. But I think it's very clear that whoever made this app thought, "Know what? We should make an app that just has tits. Nothing else, just tits."
More to the point: the women are being used in a way that is completely determined by the user of the app, instead of being given any kind of consideration as people.
Tits are part of people. I have tits. People have tits and I like people and I like their tits. Without people, there are no tits. How many different ways can I say this? I don't like tits that are disconnected from people. That's disgusting.
If I am staring at a woman's tits - I am certainly giving her whole person my consideration, even though my eyes can only look at one thing at a time. WTF would I do with just a pair of tits?
No, the reason I'm looking is that I probably want more.
I am certainly giving her whole person my consideration
This app removes the women's ability to participate in the exchange at all. They have no control and are presented in a way that is completely in control of the user. When you remove her ability to decide how her body is being used, you are not considering her as a whole person. It's not about tits.
Keyboard acceleration. I have never seen an HTML control kit that handles the Tab or Arrow keys correctly or even very well.
No standards. For example - Drag and Drop. There is no standard system for Drag and Drop between components in the browser because it doesn't know about these controls, it only knows div div div div div. So, in general - it's just harder to write good code that targets HTML components because there are no standards for complex components.
(Some more patterns with no standards for complex components: Data Binding, Encapsulation (grouping one or more component into a parent component and walking parent/child components), Inheritance.)
And then, there's performance. Native trumps HTML here, no contest.
Obviously not everyone agrees what is sexist.