There’s the original pronunciation, the suggestive spelling, the common phenomenon of punning in programming, and the natural way people pronounce it as a familiar name when they first see it. Then there’s your camp with a mythical, dorky pronunciation they pull out of nowhere and reinforce because.

I think people are fine to call it Jason & drive you irrationally mad.

You seem in irrational need for validation of your pronunciation despite clear justification against it. Cool ad populum. Fly that insecurity flag high.

You & your buddies can keep pronouncing it jaysawn & sounding like complete dorks if it makes you feel better. However, it was clearly intended to be pronounced naturally as Jason like its inventor pronounces it.

Believing otherwise is almost as bad as the plebs who think the symbol ∅ is inspired by Greek letter φ instead of Danish/Norwegian letter Ø.

No, it’s pronounced Jason. Douglas Crockford was just too laissez-faire to correct anyone on it probably because he didn’t give a fuck.

To compound the situation, the reporting process against moderators is hidden from view & a joke, and they practically prohibit any place to openly share notes on bad moderators, so users can’t collectively gather compelling evidence, organize, and condemn bad moderators.

Moderator Code of Conduct: Rule 3:

As a moderator, you cannot interfere with or disrupt Reddit communities, nor can you facilitate, encourage, coordinate, or enable members of your community to do this.

Interference includes:

• Enabling or encouraging content that showcases when users are banned or actioned in other communities, with the intent to incite a negative reaction.

Again, fuck that place.

It’s scary until you notice you don’t get banned for disagreeing & challenging their dumbassery (as long as you follow the rules), unlike reddit where the slightest wrong move & it’s BAN BAN BAN. Fuck that place.

It also helps to check which instance a post comes from & adjust your expectations accordingly.

Oh noes, the target of the insult is insulted in a way the target would not approve. It’s like the insult is meant to inflict abuse on the target. Logic circuits breaking down. What will society do?

I don’t get the fuss about the leads, either. Came in with no preconceptions & thought it was fine. 🤷

I was struggling to grasp your point’s connection to mine until I remembered people read headlines without reading content, assessing arguments, checking primary sources. Friendly Atheist’s post is about people leaving FFRF in response to FFRF removing an unpopular article in response to pressure. Were their reasons true & do they justify their response?

They stated their reasons in the quoted excerpts & linked sources. We don’t need to know who they are to evaluate those reasons. Their reasons appear to be that

1. FFRF removed the article due to disagreement.
2. Removing the article suppresses disagreement.
3. By suppressing disagreement, the organization fails to defend its foundational value: freethought.

Seem true on all counts.

Do the reasons justify the response? Does an organization’s failure to defend freethought justify leaving an organization that claims to defend it? I would think so.

Would this argument justify absolutely anyone (even Dawkins) to leave FFRF? That’s the beauty of a sound argument: who you are doesn’t matter.

Got to disagree: this is a purity spiral. Especially for an organization that represents freethought, ending debate by shutting it down is unskilled. Only the weakest thinkers defend ideas that way. It’s better to defeat a bad argument with a better argument, prevail truth over falsehoods, & win opponents over. Better to fight bad ideas with better ideas. It’s okay to be wrong.

The controversial article begins from the uncontroversial thesis that “sex, a biological feature” differs from “gender, the sex role one assumes in society”, and that Grant errs in arguing sex can’t be defined. The article as written doesn’t vilify transgender people. His argument, however, draws conclusions incorrectly

• Transgender women should not serve as rape counselors and workers in battered women’s shelters
• Transgender women should not be placed in a women’s prison.

because they are biological males & biological males have higher rates of sexual violence. He also argued that transgender women commit sexual offences at a greater rate based on prison populations.

Countering the argument should have been easy. I would think any qualified person for the role (including biological males) could perform duties in a battered women’s shelter. I’m not sure placing nonviolent transgender offenders in women’s prison would be a problem. (Really, I think the problems inmates suffer in US prisons have more to do with shitty US practices complicit with inmate abuses: other countries have more civilized prisons that stress rehabilitation.) Prison populations are insufficient & unrepresentative of the general population, so that sexual offence rate argument is clearly a fallacy (of incomplete evidence).

His remaining conclusion “Transgender women should not compete athletically against biological women” is harder to deny: sports competitions are separated by sex due to differing advantages of biological sex traits. Transgender athletes who complete transition before puberty mostly lack these advantages, and sports regulations attempt to address this to some extent.

Grant ultimately did raise some good points despite a fatuous argument about biology leading there. Coyne corrected that then drew some wrong conclusions. Healthier debate could have settled differences closer to the truth.

Though I can understand FFRF’s fear to lose donor support, their lack of faith that freethought (rejection of authority & dogmatism) will prevail & settle the truth troubles me. Ceding their values without trying is their loss.