I'm not worried about kids, and I don't care about sex, I'm making a point that this has been arbitrarily sexualised for no reason. Obviously you wouldn't give it that label by default, so what is the author trying to do here? This is supposed to be a technical problem.
I also find it funny that pointing out something is a weird and distracting choice is considered angry, and I can only assume by the onslaught of downvotes, uninclusive or something... or maybe my "what if" has been interpreted as a "think of the children", hard to know when people don't bother forming an argument.
Idiomatically signifies exasperated frustration/anger in many contexts.
My entire comment was just a play on words, pointing out that the word "fucking" means "having sex" (i know it's one of those words with a ton of shades and nuance so there are lots of uses for it but for the play on words, let's be literal - also easier when the context is sexual to begin with). When read in that light - "a having sex pleading face and they made it about sexual roles" is amusing, no?
People put references to hobbies/interests/trends in technical problem discussions all the time; that's what makes a shared culture. Look at e.g. "yeet" in the Rust expression discussions, or cheese/spam/etc. mentions in Python.
Why do you think this should be treated differently when that hobby/interest/trend is sexual? Why do you think something sexual is "weird/distracting" in a way that other interests aren't? Given that you explicitly said "How would they go about explaining that label to a child?", complaining that you're not making a "think of the children" argument and don't care about children seems more than a little disingenuous.
Because your comment was ad hominem. I didn't flag it, but this is generally considered counterproductive to interesting discussion on HN and in general.
Exactly.
(also, you are so worried about the kids, why are you making sex about anger in your anger over sex?)