
Raganwald quits Hacker News - steveklabnik
https://twitter.com/raganwald/status/435443764572598272
======
ebbv
I don't care how prominent a person is, "I'm leaving and not coming back!"
announcements have always been childish.

The conversation in question wasn't even uncivil. He's thrown a hissy fit over
nothing.

~~~
larrys
"I don't care how prominent a person is"

I love the entire concept of calling a top commenter "prominent". As if what
they say (because they have so much karma) is so valuable and not replaceable.

Unfortunately I didn't follow raganwald closely so I can't say much about the
types of things he would get involved in.

As far as value and benefit I think a "grellas" is higher on the scale [1] of
"prominence" because of the type of things he discusses (law) even though he
is lower on the karma scale. Basically because of not only what I learn but
the degree to which I can be safe in assuming it is correct (perhaps because
the subject is not as subjective.)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders](https://news.ycombinator.com/leaders)

Edit [1] Of course I will preempt the obvious rebuttal which is to say since I
don't really know much about raganwald comments (I have read them but don't
particularly remember anything or his slant and knowledge) how do I know he
shouldn't rank higher in prominence?

~~~
quesera
> I love the entire concept of calling a top commenter "prominent".

"Prominent" in the sense of "highly visible" or "widely known". I don't see
the argument against that label.

Maybe you're thinking of "preeminent"? That would be a higher bar.

~~~
larrys
Definition I come up with for prominent is "important and well-known".

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prominent](http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/prominent)

And that is what the definition and typical usage for me (and observed by
others) has always been. (Perhaps for a non american speaker it is different).

~~~
quesera
Sorry, got carried away with my recommendation of "preeminent" as a
replacement with a stronger connotation of importance. The two are
colloquially interchangeable, I agree.

Back to semantics: in Latin, _prominere_ means "jutting out, standing out". I
fall for the originalist definition sometimes, though certainly a thing's
importance can be derived from its prominence. :)

------
jakobe
I completely understand him. He talked a lot about gender issues, and that's
one of a few topics that always leads to raging arguments here.

I've learned to mostly ignore this class of threads. HN is a great place to
learn about obscure hacks or interesting technical tidbits, but it's a
terrible place for discussing important social issues.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
>but it's a terrible place for discussing important social issues.

IMO the fact that many find those types of discussions unsatisfactory makes HN
a particularly good place to have them.

~~~
sentenza
But would you be willing to hold your face into the furnace? Because those
arguing for the, let's say, "progressive" stance towards (gender-)equality
issues recieve a pretty rough deal here.

I'm abstaining from commenting on these issues for just that reason. And the
HN community is not even close to being one of the worst out there in that
regard. It just seems that, in 2014, advocating online for measures to reduce
the gender-imbalances in some parts of our society will inevitably stirr up
pure, raw hate.

~~~
fnordfnordfnord
I think it is a very small minority of people who are opposed to gender-
equality in principle. A lot of us are oblivious to the problems experienced
by non-males.

>I'm abstaining from commenting on these issues for just that reason.

But why? To preserve karma? You can't take it with you when you die.

>advocating online for measures to reduce the gender-imbalances in some parts
of our society will inevitably stirr up pure, raw hate.

Some people can't comment on an issue which they feel strongly about without
making a personal insult. That's a problem for them, not you.

~~~
malandrew
I reckon I'm probably part of that minority because I argue against some of
the shortsighted solutions people propose for bandaging over the problems and
symptoms instead of treating the cause. For example, I know I've debated
against raganwald at least once with respect to company cultures, some of
which may have less then desirable traits with respect to how comfortable each
gender may feel when immersed in those cultures (but ultimately is an effect,
not cause of inequality).

The problem that some people have with a lot of these discussions isn't with
the gender equality, but that many of those arguing for certain measures throw
all logic and reason out the window when it comes to what the correct solution
is. It's like they start with the "5 whys", stop after the first and propose a
solution to that problem without getting to the root.

Gender inequality in STEM companies is result of problems that start far
earlier in life and attempting to fix the problems at the company level is
simply treating one of the myriad symptoms.

Want to actually fix the problem? Then acknowledge that it's a 20+ year
solution you need and not a 1-2 year solution. Provide far more support at the
elementary school level, but make sure whatever solution you come up with is
gender neutral. If in the first year of offering such program for young
children, the ratio of boys to girls still isn't desirable, then focus on
improving over several years instead of band-aid solutions like making
programs only for girls (which only teaches small boys the lesson that girls
need special treatment, the absolute wrong lesson to learn.)

TBH, the only environment in which it is fair to provide STEM program support
without teaching exclusion or communicating special treatment is the Girl
Scouts, because at least with girl scouts (and boy scouts), the grouping is
about being with your peers and does not transit the message that girls need
any special treatment with regards to some activities like STEM.

For a bunch of nerds that are always discussing how to get traction and
adoption of ideas, I'm constantly floored that we don't realize that getting
traction/adoption that leads to gender equality can really only start at the
elementary school level. Every other solution that tries to solve the problem
at the adult level often just breeds resentment (from men feeling that they
have some sort of original sin or male nerds burden and women being taught
they need special treatment instead of succeeding on their own merit).

If there is one piece out there that is required reading to really understand
this, it is this article by Susan Sons.

[http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-
software](http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/girls-and-software)

------
minimaxir
":( what was the last straw?" "Being told that people should be shamed for
suggesting certain ideas."

While not surprising behavior for Hacker News, is there any more context to
this?

I'm assuming it's related to this:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7242845](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7242845)

~~~
taurath
Without much context, the argument seems like a dishwasher argument - IE its
not actually over the dirty dishes. I wonder what precipitated the rest?

~~~
agumonkey
Is this really so common that it's called a 'dishwasher argument' ?

~~~
dionidium
No. Source:
[https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dishwasher+argument%22](https://www.google.com/search?q=%22dishwasher+argument%22)

------
mindcrime
I usually enjoyed raganwald's posts, and agreed with him from time to time,
but not always. But these "so and so is quitting HN" posts don't seem very
valuable to me. It's arguably unfortunate that raganwald is leaving, but the
site will go on. Eventually, HN may degrade into a modern version of Slashdot
and maybe more and more of the old-timers will gradually drift away. There's
no doubt that a number of them already have. But there's not much point
getting all worked up over any one individual leaving.

I know pg has put a lot of thought into how to keep the level of discourse
high, and into how to prevent the "Eternal September" effect. Maybe he'll
succeed. Maybe not. In the meantime, let's talk about something interesting.
:-)

------
bsg75
So the tweet is gone. I will just leave this here:
[http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/09/you-
suck.html](http://weblog.raganwald.com/2007/09/you-suck.html)

"Thursday, September 20, 2007 - You suck.

There’s a childish thing bloggers do. They get angry about something that
pisses them off, and they vent. They know, deep in their hearts, that whining
about stuff when they could be out there making positive change is not
constructive. And they especially know that lashing out in public is not
constructive criticism, it’s just throwing a digital temper tantrum."

------
kentwistle
He will be sorely missed :(

------
chasing
"Being told that people should be shamed for suggesting certain ideas."

More context?

There are certain ideas that we should definitely shame people for suggesting.

------
galapago
Since this hit the front page of HN, an admin could send him/her a new
password. That's ironic!

------
mark_integerdsv
I see a lot of pople I'd expect to be more mature making a seeminlgy conscious
effort to get bent out of shape about the gender thing.

I guess it's good to create awareness but I hope these people don't end up
doing things with a net negative effect in the process.

------
kaonashi
ITT: perfect illustration of why he left, and why you should probably follow
suit.

------
cbeach
I'm tired of feminists (both men and women) hijacking the buzz around
technology to post whiny repetitive linkbait about their trophy victimhood.

Tired of special interest groups that demean the achievements of women who
made it on merit.

Tired of angry disaffected feminists like Laurie Penny, Caroline Criado-Perez
and Shanley trying to make their misandry sound intellectual.

Tired of media companies manufacturing spurious concepts like "Women 2.0" in
order to sell event tickets and column inches.

We've lost nothing of value with this "stomp my feet and slam the door" farce.

~~~
yapcguy
It's mostly faux outrage.

There are many fields and industries where women outnumber men, yet not a peep
from the usual suspects.

------
corresation
Is it irony that Raganwald is trying to group shame someone( _1_ ) for stating
_their_ opinion?

 _1_ \- they have to know with certainty that people will dig into the cause
of their rather childish blowout. If people want to quit something for
internal reasons, they simply quit. If they want to apply some leverage they
try a public blowout.

~~~
andrewflnr
It wasn't childish. If he hadn't announced it, there would eventually be
people asking "what happened to raganwald?" If it's worth anything, he didn't
give the reason until asked.

~~~
corresation
Having a tantrum and trying to raise a mob because someone says something that
you disagree with is, under the most charitable of interpretations, bully-like
and absolutely childish. His original comment was fishing for a query, and
such was guaranteed.

~~~
andrewflnr
You could argue that he was fishing for the question. I'd rather not assume
that when there's a perfectly reasonable charitable interpretation. But I see
no evidence that he was "trying to raise a mob". His actions, as far as I can
tell, are perfectly consistent with having good intentions: it would have been
a bit rude, perhaps even cowardly, to just disappear, the question of why was
inevitable (as you said), and he answered honestly. If a mob raises itself,
that's really not his responsibility. Really, it's not. I can't see what he
should have dinner differently.

