
Tech Culture: More Legos and Less Punch Buggy - tswicegood
http://naramore.net/blog/tech-culture-more-legos-and-less-punch-buggy
======
yummyfajitas
_If you’ve not been a minority in a group before (especially in a career-type
setting), then it is hard to even imagine what that’s like._

First of all, lets call this argument out for what it is - it's basically an
appeal to authority. It's an implicit claim that if you aren't a member of a
specific authoritative group, you are unable to reason about a topic. And it's
a logical fallacy.

Second of all, it isn't even true. I've been a minority in a career-type
setting ever since leaving academia and I've never had the reactions that the
author's whiny male friend did. People mock me due to my unusual physical
characteristics (e.g., I get sunburned), I mock them for being < 5' tall, then
we get lunch.

It's no big deal because I choose to focus on the code, relax and roll with
it.

But hey, I'm sure my experience will be dismissed because I'm not the _right_
type of minority in a career setting.

~~~
MartinCron
I think you're kind of proving the author's point. _You_ don't get hurt in
those scenarios, therefore you think nobody does or nobody should.

Not everyone can be, or even should be, exactly the same.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I'm not disputing the author's main point. I'm pointing out a logical fallacy
in their post.

~~~
MartinCron
It's only a logical fallacy if you stretch it too far. The original statement
was that "it's _hard_ to know what something's like if you haven't experienced
it" which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say, along the lines of "you
haven't had salted caramel ice cream? You don't know what you're missing!"

You distorted that into "unless you are a member of the group, it's
_impossible_ for you to understand" which I guess would be a logical fallacy,
but that's a different message altogether.

------
Tichy
Fair enough, although I'd like to speak up and say that a world in which
nobody is allowed to say anything that could hurt anybody's feelings wouldn't
be a very interesting place to live in (for example sometimes the truth
hurts). I don't want to defend sexist jokes or whatever is the problem, I just
don't like the emotion argument, because it is too easy to manipulate people
using it.

~~~
MartinCron
There's a huge difference between _a world in which nobody is allowed to say
anything that could hurt anybody's feelings_ and _a professional workplace
where people are not systematically alienated for not being part of the
dominant group_.

Be as edgy and offensive as you want, on your own time, thanks.

~~~
prodigal_erik
There isn't a practical difference between those when there's no consensus
about what's alienating. Offices must be bland, because society has decided
that making brittle people unemployable would be a worse thing to do. I
actually sort of agree with the logic, while disliking the forced choice.

~~~
MartinCron
_There isn't a practical difference between those when there's no consensus
about what's alienating_

It seems that the consensus that reasonable people are closing in on is that
once someone takes the effort to tell you something is alienating, it probably
is, and that saying "lighten up" or "grow a thick skin" is probably the wrong
response.

Also, "brittle people", really? Most people would be seen as brittle if the
right pressure were applied to them.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Yeah, I should have put that better, I think I got it from Dilbert. I was
alluding to the outliers, the people who are most sensitive to small and
surprising provocations, because that's where every employer must set the bar
regarding what's acceptable.

------
tomjen3
The problem with the pedophile argument is that being called a bitch or
treated like a secretary cannot result in you ending in jail.

After this can we please not post anymore racist/sexist/*ist stuff? I don't
know about you, but I come here for the news about tech and the super
insightfull comments and these stories seem a waste of brain power.

~~~
npc
> After this can we please not post anymore racist/sexist/*ist stuff?

How about we stop talking about racism and sexism when there's no more racism
and sexism? And how is talking about a problem that effects people negatively
a "waste of brain power"?

------
vasco
I've been mocked plenty for a bunch of reasons and I'm sure everyone has too.
When I was a kid I ran up to my mom and said "Hey mom, that kid was mean to
me." and she would tell me "Just ignore him." and make me go play again. Now
I'm a grown up and I don't need to go to my mom everytime someone makes fun of
me or looks at me wierd. And I sure don't go whinning to the internet.

------
angersock
The lego analogy is good, the Punch Buggy is not.

Here's the thing: words (as opposed to physical violence) are very curious
insofar as they can only hurt you as much as you let them.

I'd suggest that it'd be better to try and cultivate thick skins, and to
publicly shame or ignore people who are acting like idiots until they knock it
off.

Racism, sexism, genderism (is that even the right word?), and agism are all
stupid biases, and by treating them like a valid threat instead of a silly
self-limiting arbitrary preference we are doing well by no one.

~~~
lmkg
I find that most people's suggestions on this topic are that _someone else_
modify their behavior to accommodate the suggester. This observation applies
to both sides: pro-feminists suggest men stop behaving in ways that offend
them, and (non-pro-feminist) men suggest that women stop being offended.

I don't think we're going to get very far when both sides put the
responsibility[1] for action on the other party.

[1] Responsibility is not the same as blame.

~~~
angersock
You're welcome to do as you please, of course. Just acknowledge that, if it
pleases you to be offended when somebody says something factually incorrect
about you, well, by golly, you'll be offended.

We cannot do anything by message passing (especially on the internet) that
directly and unstoppably changes the mental state of another person--they must
read it, and then become offended or not. This is trivially shown to be true.

You don't throw a system out on the 'net without hardening it--even well-
meaning applications can cause problems if you don't.

Similarly, even well-meaning messages can cause people distress if they allow
them to; it's better just to have thicker skin and deal with the unrepentant
troublemakers by ignoring them or correcting them.

