I'm confused. The author seems to advocate for civil, rational, open-minded discussion, and follows it by advocating that the industry effectively exile someone whose views he disagrees with.
The included quote is not a personal attack on any individual. Yes, its strongly worded - more than I would personally like. But its not a wild rant saying women are an inferior race. The quote doesn't even suggest women shouldn't be in tech - it simply suggests an explanation for the gender imbalance (however accurate that explanation may be).
Why not attack that explanation instead? Leave no doubt in anyone's mind that he is painfully wrong - not by public shaming and ostracizing, but through the rational argument the author seems to so eagerly want.
The article questioned the honour and motivations of men who stand up for women's rights, calling them: ‘dickless wonders’, posers, ‘bland, craven hacks’, ‘docile, cringing cowards’, ‘buffoons’, ‘spineless’, ‘ostentatiously beta’, either ‘weak and stupid’ or ‘horny’, and ‘lazy, spineless weasel[s]’.
Only in a hypermale industry can someone bitterly accuse you of missing a phallus for standing up for women's rights, and people will still say, "What's sexist about that?"
> But its not a wild rant saying women are an inferior race.
"For this is the technology industry: there are more men in it because the male mind is, in general, better primed with the sorts of skills the industry values; men are simply better suited to most technology jobs. Women therefore tend to work in roles that require finesse and communicative skills, where they pop up in this world at all."
"Impressive women who can stand their ground alongside men – and there are plenty of them – succeed not in spite of a supposedly oppressive male atmosphere but because of it."
"The best women don’t want your pity and the mediocre ones don’t matter anyway."
Only in a backwards male-dominated culture do we lack the basic reading comprehension to see the sexism in this.
So, original article's thesis seems to be: "It is a colossal waste of time to tweet about demographics during a presentation where something else is being discussed."
The article then goes on to substantiate this thesis, using claims and rhetoric that aren't, in my opinion, worth the packets they're printed on.
However, the thesis--valid or not--is a decent point for discussion.
Zack did not raise to the occasion, and instead rallied about tarring and feathering the author (and other people in the community with similar views. He suggested that the companies purge themselves of any affiliation with the article's original author, and without even specifying why this was valid.
Simply put, this is crude demagoguery. I'll confront it head on: Why in the world would you categorically cut ties with anyone whose opinions on an unrelated matter you don't agree with?
By your logic, Haber should be stricken from the history books.
1. Mike is a big fat jerk.
2. "everyone who ever published his words about any subject in any capacity should disavow him and ostracize him for his thoughtcrime, and everyone who doesn't is bad people" is stupid.
I'm not a religious person, but I'd direct you to Proverbs 13:20. You are the company you keep. And I'm saying that if we want our community to be open, welcoming and civil, we need to foster those qualities and reject those who do not value them.
Sometimes negative discrimination can be a useful tool.
This was a good blog post. If those corporations give their oversized megaphones to racists and misogynists, they should face retaliation. That's just plain activism. (Because their decisionmaking is private; they hire voices they want and exclude those they don't.)
The guy already has free speech. He can post his masculine drivel on the internet without fearing police. So much for so-called "thoughtcrime".
As for him not being able to get a cushy job writing words, we could discuss some advanced egalitarian society where we're all guaranteed a decent living. But not the world we live in, and in fact he's writing screeds against people trying to equalize gender relations.
Ah, political correctness... While I don't subscribe to the theory that women's brains are primed towards different things, I don't think it is really established that (on average) they aren't either. Therefore, to be honest, I think it should still be possible to entertain that notion so that appropriate research can be conducted.
Did you read his article? Here's another direct quote:
I’m afraid it’s time to be honest about what’s really
going on when a tech blogger – or even, for shame, a
proper newspaper journalist – makes these impassioned
pleas for arbitrary “equality” or – shudder – “quotas”.
Either they are weak and stupid or they are horny.
I think it's a valid opinion. This will get me thousands of downvotes, but I have been wondering, too, why some men seem to be eager to proclaim "yes, we are pigs". I'm sorry, I'm fighting it, but sometimes "good doggy, good doggy" is shooting through my head :-/
Edit: I will now log out of HN and vow to not log back in for at least a week. I don't have the time for another of those discussions.
Mr. Yiannopoulos himself is homosexual, which means I don't think he gets to make comments like that. (EDIT: I'm saying this as a gay guy; I would never call into question the honour or motivations of a man who stood up for women's rights)
Two things. First, the article doesn't "challenge" Zach's views in any comprehensible way. It simply spews vitriol as if the author (who is also the publisher) was paid by the ad hominem.
Second, the views Zach espouses have more weight than simply Zach's endorsement. It isn't as if he's the only one who feels this way.
Putting those two things together, I don't think it's fair to use words that imply that Zach is rejecting the author solely because the author's views undermine Zach's personal and unique viewpoint, introducing cognitive dissonance.
You or I may disagree with him, but I think Zach's argument is more akin to putting up a sign that defines "nicely" the same way Hacker News defines its guidelines, namely a set of heuristics for discourse that have been found through experience to lead to productive discussion.
Of course, Zach (or anyone) isn't alone in his views.
You're wrong here, though:
> Putting those two things together, I don't think it's fair to use words that imply that Zach is rejecting the author solely because the author's views undermine Zach's personal and unique viewpoint, introducing cognitive dissonance.
If a man wants to ban openly gay displays of affection, it's because he wants to play king. The fact that others share his sentiment is irrelevant.
Clearly, Zach isn't alone in his bullying views or attitudes, but it doesn't matter. If anything, it makes it worse.
I know it's easy to suspect that Zach sees the irony in what he's saying, but he doesn't. I know he doesn't. I've stumbled across far too many people like him at my university to believe that he is merely using satire.
He really does believe that he welcomes an open discussion, despite (in the same breath) calling for all of us to exhile and ruin the professional life of anyone who dares to disagree with him.
These are the same types of people who salivate at the thought of burning "counter-revolutionaries" alive.
I hope you grow up, Zach, And I say that as someone younger than you.
The included quote is not a personal attack on any individual. Yes, its strongly worded - more than I would personally like. But its not a wild rant saying women are an inferior race. The quote doesn't even suggest women shouldn't be in tech - it simply suggests an explanation for the gender imbalance (however accurate that explanation may be).
Why not attack that explanation instead? Leave no doubt in anyone's mind that he is painfully wrong - not by public shaming and ostracizing, but through the rational argument the author seems to so eagerly want.