> With many smaller companies, it is often ignorance.
I think that's an unfair statement about smaller companies. Just two months ago a SQL vulnerability was discovered on the website of NASDAQ.
I think the solution is to use frameworks that promote safe behaviour and have idioms for dealing with common cases. Make someone go out of their way to do the dangerous thing.
Paul Graham is gay -- is not derogatory unless you think being gay is wrong; it's simply factually inaccurate. Like saying, "Harry Potter is in Ravenclaw." Which is offensive if you have a prejudice against Ravenclaws.
I assume you are aware that when someone claims that someone else is homosexual, when that isn't actually true, 90%+ of the time it is meant as a derogatory statement, and should be interpreted as such regardless of the listener's gender politics. Unless you actually believe that all the children in online video games using this same terminology aren't actually malicious, just factually inaccurate. In which case I have a bridge to sell you.
Of course the GP knows that, and he is rejecting the use as an insult and substituting the idea that someone attempting that is saying something nonsensical; "wow this water sure is dry". I think it's awesome.
To me it just sounds like someone being needlessly difficult and nit-picky, which we have plenty of on this site without pretending that connotation doesn't exist.
Yes, it can be seen as nit-picky, but I don't think the person is pretending the connotation doesn't exist. Maybe they're just trying to start the long process of de-teething that connotation so that in maybe 50 years saying someone is gay might actually mean, once again, that they are extremely happy.
It's a next to impossible task, like the people who would like to reclaim the swastika back to its original peaceful meaning, but it's great to try.
I wasn't trying to be nit-picky, as nekopa discerned. I am aware of the derogatory connotation and choosing to dismiss the homophobic person by treating them like an ignorant child. I've rarely seen argument ever convince someone they're wrong; Instead, I do not legitimize their bigotry and save myself valuable time.
Like a person using a racial slur -- they immediately demonstrate the quality of their character.
I just want to second that this book is great. Ignore any negative inclination you feel because it's called fan fiction. It's fanfiction the way John Gardner's Grendel is Beowulf fanfiction.
That's an interesting argument. It reminds me of Louis C.K.'s routine about how "no words are bad, but they become bad because people start using them to hurt other people."
It's exciting to think we can take words like "gay," which are used in some contexts to hurt people, and strip away their negative connotations.
Having said that, I don't see any evidence to suggest that the commenter was trying to innovate on the term. He or she should have written, "PAUL GRAHAM IS GAY, WHICH ISN'T TRUE, BUT IF IT WERE TRUE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH HIS CHARACTER OR VALUE AS A PERSON."
But then again, I guess if you're writing in all caps, you must be very angry and in a hurry. Probably didn't have time to deal with nuances.
I didn't write the original comment on the site. I was just commenting on the response to it. In two separate discussions of the use of "gay," people brought up the Louis CK clip. He's also one of my favourite comics and it tickled me that disparate people had the exact same line of reasoning.
0: http://www.gwern.net/Nootropics