Be nice
// Hmm, who knows how I'm affecting this whole stereotype thing! I usually go out in public with a programming book on my side, ready to explain even the simplest ideas in programming to anyone who's interested! To me, programming is exciting. A while ago I was being guided through how to convert my dice-rolling program into the same program using structures... I haven't done that yet but when I started hearing examples of structures my mind was blown with many ideas and possibilities beyond my coding-level.
// I seem to be...uncommon. X.x Not cool man! Where's all the programming enthusiasts out there... making games, advancing algorithms, working on language standards committees!?
// I seem to be...uncommon. X.x Not cool man! Where's all the programming enthusiasts out there... making games, advancing algorithms, working on language standards committees!?
| Not... |
I was thinking of the relationship that involved procreation (as you previously mentioned as a requirement to one).
Nomatter how well a man lives, in the end he gets married.
You thought you could be alone and rely only on your computer but you are wrong! A woman is destined to come and snatch any programming loving person, away from his beloved computer and cheerful debugging environment.
Especially if that person happens to be employed with a high salary (which does happen quite often to C++ programmers).
You thought you could be alone and rely only on your computer but you are wrong! A woman is destined to come and snatch any programming loving person, away from his beloved computer and cheerful debugging environment.
Especially if that person happens to be employed with a high salary (which does happen quite often to C++ programmers).
I have to say that this thread was a hilarious read.
"We're not anti-social, we're nice and smart and just like to be alone."
"I have a girlfriend!"
"That's offensive!"
*flamewar*
Carry on!
"We're not anti-social, we're nice and smart and just like to be alone."
"I have a girlfriend!"
"That's offensive!"
*flamewar*
Carry on!
it was the
| I know a few who have or have had girlfriends at a young (high school) age. |
| "We're not anti-social, we're nice and smart and just like to be alone." "I have a girlfriend!" "That's offensive!" *flamewar* |
I would say it's more an intelligent conversation on the stereotype of programmers and implications of certain words.
This isn't an insightful discussion, it's a group of programmers patting themselves on the back for being programmers.
Nested within the lovefest is an argument on whether having sex occasionally counts as being sociable and if it still counts if you're only have sex with an ugly girl/guy/badger/tree/Mountain Dew bottle and oh boy isn't that an offensive thing to categorize relationships as social.
Is that fine? Sure, why not. You're allowed to do that kind of stuff, and it happens in any community that perceives itself as being perceived as different from or 'other' to the general populace, whatever that happens to mean. You could easily replace all references to 'programmers' with 'artists' or 'gamers', and all references to 'programming' with 'making art' or 'gaming' without losing one iota of meaning or truthiness relative to the view of itself the group wishes to propagate.
My take on it? Variations within a group tend to be more pronounced than variations between groups. In other words, the group itself will tend to be a cross section of the populace, with some members really impressive and some members lower than slugs.
But, as said before, do carry on. This sort of thread is always fun!
Nested within the lovefest is an argument on whether having sex occasionally counts as being sociable and if it still counts if you're only have sex with an ugly girl/guy/badger/tree/Mountain Dew bottle and oh boy isn't that an offensive thing to categorize relationships as social.
Is that fine? Sure, why not. You're allowed to do that kind of stuff, and it happens in any community that perceives itself as being perceived as different from or 'other' to the general populace, whatever that happens to mean. You could easily replace all references to 'programmers' with 'artists' or 'gamers', and all references to 'programming' with 'making art' or 'gaming' without losing one iota of meaning or truthiness relative to the view of itself the group wishes to propagate.
My take on it? Variations within a group tend to be more pronounced than variations between groups. In other words, the group itself will tend to be a cross section of the populace, with some members really impressive and some members lower than slugs.
But, as said before, do carry on. This sort of thread is always fun!
Last edited on
I think this conversation might benefit from the evolution of the geek.
Enjoy!
http://www.flowtown.com/blog/the-evolution-of-the-geek?display=wide
Enjoy!
http://www.flowtown.com/blog/the-evolution-of-the-geek?display=wide
| This isn't an insightful discussion... |
I never claimed it was.
| ...it's a group of programmers patting themselves on the back for being programmers. |
Because we'd rather if people did not think of us a social outcasts?
| Nested within the lovefest is an argument on whether having sex occasionally counts as being sociable and if it still counts if you're only have sex with an ugly girl/guy/badger/tree/Mountain Dew bottle and oh boy isn't that an offensive thing to categorize relationships as social. |
I don't believe sex was mentioned, but relationships. That was another topic that was brought up and discussed and I (assuming you were referring to what I said) never said it was offensive to categorize it as a relationship, but because dating a less attractive person did not count as a relationship.
| Is that fine? Sure, why not. You're allowed to do that kind of stuff, and it happens in any community that perceives itself as being perceived as different from or 'other' to the general populace, whatever that happens to mean. You could easily replace all references to 'programmers' with 'artists' or 'gamers', and all references to 'programming' with 'making art' or 'gaming' without losing one iota of meaning or truthiness relative to the view of itself the group wishes to propagate. |
Sure, that's a possibility, but this is not a 'artists' or 'gamers' forum.
| My take on it?...some members really impressive and some members lower than slugs. |
First off, what exactly is this your take on? There are several topics in this thread so you have to be more specific. That last line could also use some more elaboration.
I don't see why I should repeat myself, and therefore I shan't. If you don't understand why this sort of thread is both common and as silly as trying to look at the back of your own head without a mirror, I really can't make it plain for you.
I'm just not a cunning linguist, I suppose.
I'm just not a cunning linguist, I suppose.
MottMan is correct: I didn't mean sex when I said relationship. I meant relationship as in being together, talking together, enjoying each other's company. Y'know, what people do in a relationship.
Since I'm probably one of the "slugs", I wouldn't mind knowing how I got there.
And I find quite impressive that you've managed to categorize all of us already! What's your secret? Do you actually know us? Any of us? I used to do that too you know: Categorize people as soon as I met them. Then a certain person came along who threw all my assumptions out the window. I would suggest doing the same with yours.
Please throw yourself off your high and mighty cloud and come down to join us. Or don't, don't much care either way.
Since I'm probably one of the "slugs", I wouldn't mind knowing how I got there.
And I find quite impressive that you've managed to categorize all of us already! What's your secret? Do you actually know us? Any of us? I used to do that too you know: Categorize people as soon as I met them. Then a certain person came along who threw all my assumptions out the window. I would suggest doing the same with yours.
Please throw yourself off your high and mighty cloud and come down to join us. Or don't, don't much care either way.
| I don't see why I should repeat myself, and therefore I shan't. If you don't understand why this sort of thread is both common and as silly as trying to look at the back of your own head without a mirror, I really can't make it plain for you. |
I never stated (yet again, falsley accusing me) that I didn't understand the regularity of a topic like this. I made a counterpoint to what you said because I disagree with your sentiment of disregarding our hobby as making us stapled as outcasts.
But regardless, I guess this is over due to disinterest on your part.
// Lol. Wait, are there really people here who consider "a relationship with an unattractive person" as "not a relationship"? The reason I'd rather program games is because I prefer how a game works over how a game looks visually, and the same applies for potential relationships. "It's whats inside that counts" is more than just a cheesy phrase, I'd say.
| MottMan wrote: |
|---|
| I used to do that too you know: Categorize people as soon as I met them. Then a certain person came along who threw all my assumptions out the window. I would suggest doing the same with yours. |
I used to do that too - without realising it, I was a very judgemental person. I suddenly became aware of it and I've sort of stopped. I've found, since I was about 12, that if there was some aspect of my personality that I did not like, I would realise it, and almost tell myself "No!" and change it. It's like having a very strict teacher in your head. At times I wonder if it's normal; it's almost like MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder - the most interesting psychological disorder I've heard of, in which you are literally more than one person (separate beliefs, opinions, values and even memories)) except I'm always in control of me. Like I said, it's like having a calm, sensible personality that serves to monitor the more headstrong one (ba dum tss). Lately, though, the calm me has started to give into the wishes of the aggressive me, because the aggressive me thinks that the calm me is too submissive. My heads hurt... :S
@chrisname
I didn't say that actually, it was sargon94. Either way you might want to see a physiologist about that :P
I feel that I've hit a nice balance in my personality. I don't really ever feel aggressive, or at least not enough to act on it. I had realized certain things I did are not likable and would change them as well. You should never try to change your core self though unless it's very unacceptable (violent, easily angered, depressed...). My overall feeling on myself is fairly good although that seems quite conceded.
I didn't say that actually, it was sargon94. Either way you might want to see a physiologist about that :P
I feel that I've hit a nice balance in my personality. I don't really ever feel aggressive, or at least not enough to act on it. I had realized certain things I did are not likable and would change them as well. You should never try to change your core self though unless it's very unacceptable (violent, easily angered, depressed...). My overall feeling on myself is fairly good although that seems quite conceded.
| MottMan wrote: |
|---|
| I feel that I've hit a nice balance in my personality. I don't really ever feel aggressive, or at least not enough to act on it. |
I feel like that most of the time; I'm not angry or sad, but I'm not particularly happy either. I just feel... content. Neutral. Satisfactory. I try as much as possible to live by the idea that I can't rely on others to make me happy (not because I don't trust them, just because I shouldn't have to rely on them like that) and that people can only make me unhappy if I let them.