Thanks Stefan.
On Saturday, October 10, 2015 at 12:32:05 PM UTC-5, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > 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 <[email protected] > <javascript:>> 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. >> >> >
