Let's be friendly to GIRLS

• Have a zero tolerance policy concerning online harrassment and enforce it.
• Don't allow sexist jokes. It's impossible for a woman to tell if you "really" mean it, and even if you don't it will be tedious and insulting for her to spend her time ignoring or humouring sexist jokes.
• Write all of your introductory material in such a way that a woman will recognise herself in it just as much as a man will. Use "she" to describe readers in various places, and use female names for some of your hypothetical examples when you have them.
• Unless your group has an explicitly sexual purpose, minimise the discussion of the sexual desires of participants. Many women (entirely justifiably) fear online harrassment in sexual contexts.
• Involve women in the creation and governance of your forum at every level.
• If there is an anti-feminist incident in your forum, apologise simply. Don't use phrasing that suggests that only women would have found the incident upsetting, or that you would have found the incident unproblematic if there weren't complaints. Don't tell women how they should feel about the incident: listen to them describe how they feel.
• Women are often placed in the role of "nanny" in forums. Don't leave the enforcement of social norms to the women members of the group.

Source: http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Women-friendly_forums

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜ 　 This is what foldrers
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　／　LISP|　　　|　　actually believe in
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　 ＼＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／　　　　.＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　　　　　　　　ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　／　LIS　|　　　 ＼　　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　|　　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |　　　　　|　　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／　　　　.＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿　　＼　　 ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　　　　　　　　ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼ 　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　　／　L I 　|　　　 ＼　　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　|　　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　|　　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |　　　　　|　　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
　　　　　　　　　　　　　∧＿∧　　　／　　　　.＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿　　＼　　 ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
　　　　　　　　　　　　 （　´∀｀）　＜　　　　　　　　ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼ 　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　　　　　　／　　L　|　　　 ＼　　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　　　　　　　　　/ 　　　 　 .|　　　　　|　　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
　　　　　　　　　 / "⌒ヽ |.ｲ |　　　　　|　　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
　　　　　　＿＿ |　　　.ノ | || |＿＿　　＼　　￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |
　　　　 .　　　 ノく＿＿つ∪∪　　 ＼  　 ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣
　　　　　　＿（（＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿_＼
　　　　　 ￣￣ヽつ￣￣￣￣￣￣ | |￣
　　　　　　＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿＿__| |
　　　　　 ￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣￣| |

Let's be girly to FRIENDS

GHC does not have TCO. It only performs basic optimizations such as register allocation and monadic pointer overflow checks.

>>83
Why is GHC so shitty? ;_;

monadic pointer overflow
>>84
YHBT

Please stop getting offtopic. This thread is about GIRLS, not programming.

GHC does TCO, it's just that TCO is less meaningfull when you have lazy evaluation.

TCO does iteration, it's just that TCO is less meaningfull when you have for loops.

>>88
There are some cases where you can have tail-recursive calls without actually emulating iteration constructs.

>>89
sssh, you'll scare him

>>90
Her. See point 3:

Write all of your introductory material in such a way that a woman will recognise herself in it just as much as a man will. Use "she" to describe readers in various places, and use female names for some of your hypothetical examples when you have them.

>>91
[b]Go back to [/b]Political Correctness ,please.

>>92
Your sarcasm offend me. Please see:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Political_correctness
If you are tempted to begin an argument against something we’ve said here with, “God, stop being so PC!” just stop right there. We are proudly PC and have absolutely no intention of stopping. Racist, classist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, and sexist comments are as unwelcome here as sizeist ones.
On these grounds, I demand you be evicted from this community.
Someone (note that I don't mention it has to be another female) knows how to start an Internet petition, so we may raise awareness about >>92's behavior?

>>93
Political correctness is a cancer that needs to be purged from all areas of life. Right to Free Speech is more important than not being insulted

>>91
also, there is no way in hell we actually have females on here.

>>94
How is being offensive a constructive use of free speech?
Refusing to allow minorities to be singled out does not impede culture and the free exchange of ideas.

>>96
It's not a constructive use, but if that is our criteria we may as well scrap about a quarter of the English language. People will always abuse their rights, but to purposefully limit it, for no good reason is stupid. None of the 'isms have gone away (or will go away) by banning words like "Nigger" or "Paki"

>>97
I agree, it's better to attack the root of the problem. To continue with your example, the problem would go away if, instead of banning the words, we would ban the niggers or the pakis themselves.

>>98
Wow, I'm speechless

s/speechless/dumb/

>>100
Not dumb, I just wonder what kind of a person sees the solution for racism, to be actual segregation. I mean, are you fucking kidding me?

>>100
s///\/g

Now your running with the power of WINDOWS!!!!

>>98
It's hardly a continuation of my example, allowing a certain behaviour is very different from actively promoting it.

>>101
I am concerned with social issues and think we should not pretend that we can solve problems without by ignoring them. You can only solve problems by getting rid of them.

>>104
This man speaks truth.

>>104
Then I think we have very different ideas of what the actual problem is. As far as I am concerned, the problem is that society is playing post-racial when it clearly isn't and that it will only come from frank and brutal honesty, it appears that you think the problem is that society is mixed-race in the first place.

>>106
not >>104 here
Can you find one single example in history of a mixed race culture that has in fact lasted long enough to be of historical significance?

Thought so.

>>107
Isn't today's world more advanced than it was ever in recorded history?

>>107
The romans, perhaps? I mean that was, what, 400 years?

>>108
Yes, this is relevant to the topic and not just my way of saying "I've read SICP." Seriously. Cheating via a hack is tantamount to admitting "I suck so hard, I can't win any other way no matter what" or "I get my jollies by wrecking other people's fun".
 
Neither attitude is becoming in human beings.

Bzzzt
The Romans ruled over many races it's true, but citizenship was extended only to Romans, and later during the fall to allon the Italian penisula.
Local ethic elites ruled locally over their local ethic provinces, which were in turn ruled over by, you guessed it ethnic Romans.

>>108
Tech advances, too bad human nature never changes. We are the same selfish assholes with delusions of godhood that we were 10000 years ago.

>>111
but citizenship was extended only to Romans
Some circular logic there

>>113
Sorry for the facts getting in the way. Wikipedia much?

reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_citizenship

>>114
Actually, I haven't read the Wikipedia article and will do so. However, according to the book "The Roman Army",
As the Empire expanded, absorbing western tribesmen and eastern cities and kingdoms, ethnic origins receded in importance, overtaken by the more important distinction between Roman citizens and noncitizens. The grant of citizenship could be bestowed on individual or whole communities, and with the grand were included political and legal privileges and obligations, divorced from any connotation of Roman nationality, so that it was no longer a requirement for citizens to be born in, or to be domiciled in Rome itself. In the later second century there were Roman citizens who had probably never set foot in Italy, let alone the city of Rome, and in the reign of Caracalla, Roman citizenship was extended to all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire in AD 212, thus changing the face of military recruitment, and also broadening the base of taxpayers liable to contribute to the emperor's coffers.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NqHvmQGx2iUC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=racial+makeup+of+roman+army&source=bl&ots=VLc2vw3fq_&sig=AT4zDDaX7PHsjzfC1LzCO3CFPBU&hl=en&ei=meTgSti-BtWH4Qb9lPzbDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Women are all dirty, emotional, batshit insane whores.
People who want political correctness (as well as grammar faggots) can suck my anus. They are a worthless cancer on the internet.

>>117
Do you mind? We are trying to discuss citizenship in the Roman Empire.

>>118
yes. i do mind actually.

>>117
This bears repeating. All women are whores.