
"Gangbang Interviews" and "Bikini Shots": Silicon Valley’s Brogrammer Problem - addabjork
http://motherjones.com/media/2012/04/silicon-valley-brogrammer-culture-sexist-sxsw
======
Lewisham
What I find particularly disconcerting about this Van Horn story is not that
he wanted to present it (which is terrible in and of itself), but that this
guy is 28, went through Digg (who never struck me as a company of idiots),
already presented a sexist presentation, and _still_ appears at SXSW either by
invitation of him or Path. Why would Path or SXSW allow it? Did he not
practice this presentation at Path before heading out? Was this thought to be
_acceptable_ by everyone at that company?

He sounded to me like some tragic Van Wilder-esque figure trying to clutch on
to those college good times forever.

What is somewhat frustrating about all this stuff is that, while brogrammers
or hipsters or whatever Bay Area-clique is in this month, can be targets of
derision, the Valley is actually diversifying its personality structure, if
not its sex. It's refreshing to see people that have different lifestyles to
the geek stereotype, and it's broadening the appeal of these companies.

It's getting easier and easier to sell Computer Science as a career to male
undergraduates, because they're seeing that there are people just like them
higher up. It's very annoying that those same higher ups are screwing up
female motivation.

~~~
ajross
I think you need to be careful on that line of thinking. We don't want
conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues. That said,
certainly in context the humor wasn't funny -- and SXSW certainly could have
asked him to rework the presentation to be less needlessly controversial.

I guess what I'm most confused by is why a talk titled "Adding Value as a Non-
Technical No Talent Ass-Clown." got accepted in the first place. Really? I
know SXSW isn't a hard science conference, but that seems awfully fluffy for
an event that clearly has no trouble filling seats. Maybe it's one more sign
we're in a bubble...

 _Edit: lots of folks are picking on the second sentence above and I think
taking it out of context. It was a specific reply to the idea of banning a
presenter based on the notion that he "already presented a sexist
presentation" -- a fact offered without support. That's just bad thinking. If
the guy deserves a career ban, then make that case. Don't throw it out as a
tangential point in another post._

~~~
briancurtin
> We don't want conferences censoring presenters because of reputation issues.

Consider it done.

As an organizer of PyCon, this Van Horn person and any others who lack basic
judgement and decency skills as well as having gained a reputation for that
are not welcome to present at our conference.

~~~
pyconorganizer
No. I'm a REAL PyCon organizer and I DO want people who lack basic judgement
to present at the conference!!

------
joejohnson
Good, I'm glad people walked out of Van Horn's talk. That's the appropriate
response to this sort of immature bullshit. This may sound extreme, but if
you're surrounded by douche bags who make misogynistic jokes and weave rude
and immature anecdotes into a work-related presentation, then these
"brogrammers" must believe that this behavior is acceptable. And if you
witness this, and laugh along (or even just ignore it), you are tacitly
agreeing that this culture is acceptable. Do you want to work in an
environment that allows this?

I am man, and this sort of culture makes me very uncomfortable and angry. I
imagine it's even more aggravating and discomforting to women in these
situations.

Simply refraining from laughing at a distasteful joke or turning a blind eye
to vulgarities is a cop-out. We are all apart of the culture; if you're not
calling this shit out, you might as well be laughing along.

If you see these behaviors, make an example to call that person out. Make it
very clear that this behavior is _not_ accepted. Failure to do so is implicit
approval.

~~~
anichan
See, but the problem is that women, particularly in startups, have to walk a
fine line of not letting themselves be objectified and not being labeled a
bitch. The article even mentions that there isn't really much of a robust HR
policy at small start ups.

When women in these situations make it clear that some behavior is not
acceptable, they'll inevitably be met by "Woah don't be so serious, it's just
a joke! Lighten up!" And the more upset and determined that woman is to make
it clear that something isn't acceptable, the more likely they are to be
labeled a bitch.

Because I'd bet you that 90% of the bad behavior you see in that type of
situation isn't blatant sexism; it's small "jokes" and "jabs" that all add up
to a bad workplace environment for women. And it makes it that much harder to
defend yourself when there isn't just one glaring offense that people can
blatantly see.

I think making this behavior unacceptable would be helped a lot more if men in
the workplace stood up against it. It's not so easy for a woman to do it
alone.

~~~
wunderland
I completely agree. I don't want to say that women need a man to stand up for
themselves, but like you said, women have to walk a fine line. If everybody
who sees this crap blatantly calls it out, it will wake it easier for anybody
(man or woman) to stand up against this.

~~~
mrgn
completely agree with you and anichan.

------
fab13n
> To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity.

This is very PC, but BS nonetheless. At the stage when people can be
profitably hired by start-ups, the male/female ratio is nowhere near 50% among
technical candidates.

I'm not saying that frat culture isn't harmful, nor would I dare to guess why
women are underrepresented among development professionals; but defending a
thesis with such grossly false assertions can only harm it.

~~~
dsr_
I would dare to guess that women are underrepresented among developers
PRECISELY because of this culture and the underlying assumptions and
attitudes.

Gender is irrelevant to logical analysis, which is the foundation of
programming. If you don't have parity in your pool of candidates, there's a
cause, and it's probably social.

Nursing and teaching used to be men's work. Women weren't thought to be
capable of it. Too weak. Too sensitive. Too illogical.

Women aren't going into software development? Then there's a problem. Don't be
part of it.

~~~
lotharbot
> _"Gender is irrelevant to logical analysis"_

Brain chemistry is relevant to logical analysis. Gender has significant
effects on brain chemistry.

There are _also_ social problems that contribute. But the gender ratio would
not be 50-50 even in a completely egalitarian society. Women like my wife [0]
are rare, partly because of "brogrammers" chasing them off, but also because a
smaller proportion of women are interested in the particular types of analysis
that are relevant to programming.

[0] <http://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=Dove>

~~~
pharrington
"Gender has significant effects on brain chemistry."

Quantify _how_ sex affects the brain in specific ways that effect the
likelihood of developing an interesting in programming and being an effective
programmer. Until we can do this, essentially saying "physiology affects your
organs" is a pretty empty statement.

~~~
Dove
_Quantify how sex affects the brain in specific ways that effect the
likelihood of developing an interesting in programming and being an effective
programmer._

I'm not sure I can be quite that specific, but there are some very well-
established differences in the way men and women think, and the way the
respond to stress. See here:

[http://bible.org/seriespage/biological-basis-gender-
specific...](http://bible.org/seriespage/biological-basis-gender-specific-
behavior) [1]

. . . particularly sections V and VII.

I wouldn't go so far as to say we know _how_ gender affects brain chemistry
specifically as it refers to programming, only that we know it _does_ affect
how we think, process information, and handle stress. And those things seem
like they would be relevant. Don't they?

That is to say, I wouldn't say I _know_ ALL of the differences between us are
innate, only that I find it _plausible_ that _a lot of them_ are. And that I'm
hesitant to treat statistically underrepresented women as _necessarily_ a
problem.

[1] You'll have to excuse the bible.org reference; the christian academic
community seems to be about the only one in which one can have a serious
conversation about innate differences between the genders without getting
immediately taken out and shot. You have my assurance that the discussion in
the article is interesting and scientific, and comes with copious footnotes to
mainstream sources.

~~~
Stwerp
> the christian academic community seems to be about the only one in which one
> can have a serious conversation about innate differences between the genders
> without getting immediately taken out and shot.

(Sorry, I don't mean to harp on this too much, but after hanging out around a
sociologist with a pet peeve, it has sadly rubbed off on me.)

This may be because in the academic community "gender" has an entirely
different meaning that "sex." Sex (and the sex differences) relate to
biological differences, male and female. Gender (and gender differences)
relate to society, culture, and how one acts or the roles of the masculine and
feminine _within that society_. So of course "gender differences" are not
going to turn up a lot in the academic world since a self-identifying
masculine male should have the same biology as a self-identifying feminine
male. Googling for "sex brain difference" or something like that may help (in
google scholar or a journal database, probably not plain google).

One other data point is that it is worth investigating women in technology in
other societies. According to this (old) study:
[http://www.frauen.inf.ethz.ch/stats/international_stat_fraue...](http://www.frauen.inf.ethz.ch/stats/international_stat_frauen.pdf)
women are in the majority for a few asian countries.

Just some thoughts.

------
gdubs
Interesting and well-written article, but one big problem: why throw in the
Siri abortion thing? It wasn't needed to legitimize the author's point, and if
anything comes across as technically naive. While Siri contains easter eggs
that were manually added by programmers, the vast majority of searches would
have to be algorithmic. Siri fails to find an answer to many basic queries, so
to say that the lack of a response to 'where can I get an abortion?' is due to
a lack of insight on the part of 'male programmers' is specious.

~~~
nextstep
Yeah, I agree. The results Siri returns are from Google or WolframAlpha, so a
lack of information on one subject is not necessarily Apple's oversight. I
think that the abortion-directions issue was later attributed to Google's
SafeSearch filter.

~~~
rada
Siri uses Google by default. I just searched google local for "abortion", and
Planned Parenthood was in fact listed. If SafeSearch filter is turned on, then
it should not be finding prostitution providers either.

~~~
gdubs
Google search results are vastly different these days depending on who (or
what) is searching. My guess is that 'who is searching' in this case is a box
in a datacenter, somewhere in the midwest.

------
ebbv
Not that fucking Siri canard again. It was debunked repeatedly. The reason
Planned Parenthood wasn't being found by the person's query is they were
looking for "abortion provider" or something along those lines and Planned
Parenthood wasn't listing itself under those terms. It had NOTHING to do with
sexism on the part of the developers.

Shame on the author.

~~~
rmc
I don't know of the specifics, bit I would have also assumed that since
abortion is a slightly controversial issue now, that Apple blocked it. They
don't want porn on app store, so I assumed that they blocked abortion
providers aswell.

The other reason I find this "siri sexism" theory hard to believe is how the
OP phrased the complaint. "... the male programmers didnt think to include
abortion ...". Does the OP really think that everything in Siri is hand
entered? That a bunch of (men) sat around and wrote out everything that Siri
could be asked? The OP knows about search engines right?!

~~~
ebbv
They didn't block it. The actual problem was identified and it was that the
person throwing a fit was searching for terms that Planned Parenthood didn't
list themselves under.

There was no action on Apple's part, deliberate or otherwise, that caused it.

~~~
rmc
Yeah that makes sense. When I first heard about the "scandal", I presumed it
was Apple erring on the side of caution and banning porn and abortions.

------
eli_awry
This problem starts early, too - in my undergrad institution, many of the
lectures and programming assignments taught OOP with examples employing beer
and women-as-objects-of-seduction. The lecturers - not just TAs, but also
adjuncts - would go out drinking with guys in the class from their old frats
while ( I was alerted ) speculating as to how I got into Algorithms by
sleeping with the professor. TAs discussed with guy students which of the
female profs were 'bang-able' and which 'needed to be laid' so someone would
'have to take one for the team.'

No wonder these same people think this behavior is acceptable once they enter
the workforce. They're getting it from authority figures from day one. I never
experienced anything like this in any other department at uni.

~~~
yalurker
Account created 45 minutes ago, to post a wildly unlikely and almost certainly
embellished if not entirely fictitious anecdote.

What is it about sexism on HN that brings out every troll, sock puppet, white
knight, astroturfer, and any other internet message board cliche?

The most sexist thing I've ever heard in a decade of real world work and
interactions in the software industry can't hold a candle to what anonymous
internet posters apparently see on a daily basis.

~~~
eli_awry
Yeah, I did create this account because this is an issue very dear to my
heart.

I blogged about some of this when it happened about a year ago on livejournal,
and that post made it to the front page of hn back then. I've experienced a
lot of bullshit from brogrammer types. Of course, sometimes there's no
bullshit. Some of my fellow CS grad students are awesome to work with. I'm
dating one, and he's a champ. Others have 'calendar girls' up at their
offices, or make lame jokes like "Do you taste pineapple? That's funny, cause
I've been eating it all week." (Which is an oral sex joke, kids). When people
gossiped that I'd been sleeping with the Algorithms prof (who was like 65)
because I got into the class without taking the prerequisites, other guys came
to my defense. There's good and there's bad, and it's certainly not all bad.
But some people are really, really awful, even in the real world.

Edit: And to be fair, I go out to the bar on Fridays with my coworkers (fellow
grad students), which is where some of these things happen. At my undergrad
institution, some of this happened while bowling on our weekly bowling night.
Most of this stuff didn't happen at work - it happens at events that are guy
programmers and me. If I had kept in social circles outside of my field and
only interacted with these people in a professional setting, and never ever
networked, I would have been fine.

------
RandallBrown
The brogrammer meme is JUST A JOKE! It's the very opposite of a stereotypical
programmer. It's simply taking a stereotype, flipping it around, and poking
fun at it.

Instead of being disgusted by jokes about nudie calendars, do something about
it. Go give your own presentation. Recruit more women at your company. Turn
the boys club into an everyone club.

I'm not saying that everything people are doing is okay, I'm just saying that
I think there are more productive ways of dealing with it than being offended.

~~~
buff-a
This [1] was a joke.

This [2] was for real.

    
    
      [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qi_AAqi0RZM#%21
    
      [2] http://www.readwriteweb.com/enterprise/2012/03/how-casual-sexism-put-sqoot-in.php

~~~
kstenerud
#2 was not intended to be for real. It was intended as a joke poking fun at
the brogrammer thing, but it backfired because too many people thought they
were serious. That's what happens when you step over the line while attempting
humor.

~~~
rickmb
#2 was 100% real. Yes, it was a joke, but it's only the kind of joke you make
if you have absolutely no intention whatsoever of inviting female hackers to
your event. The humor didn't cross the line, the being explicitly uninviting
to women crossed the line.

~~~
kstenerud
You are presuming to have intimate knowledge as to their thought process when
they attempted the joke. By inserting your own psyche into their actions, you
falsely assume to know that they were malicious in intent. Not everyone thinks
the same way you do, or reacts the same way you do. On the other hand, I know
Avand personally, and spoke to him shortly after the whole thing blew up.

Hanlon's razor is apt in this situation.

------
ceol
_> At the startup-focused Grow Conference in 2011, his presentation included
bikini-girl images from his calendar. He prefaced the slides with a laughing,
"I'm sorry for being sexist. I apologize in advance,"_

I read this a lot on reddit. Someone will preface their comment with "I'm
going to hell for this" or "Apologies in advance" as if that's supposed to
excuse it. I get the feeling it's because these people don't see themselves as
____ist, so when they do something ____ist it's "just a joke" or "I'm not
serious!"

I think for us to get rid of this culture, we need to make these people
realize they're actually sexist. They're not a nice guy making a sexist joke;
they're a sexist guy making a sexist joke, and this is how everyone sees them.

~~~
skore
I agree with you to a degree, but you simply can't put it as strong as you
did.

It is absolutely possible to make a joke that is understood as sexist without
being one yourself. That's actually the schtick that a lot of comedians go by.

Prefacing your comment with "I'm going to hell for this" is perfectly fine and
in most cases, it does show that the person _truly understands_ they're making
a comment that could offend others.

Whether or not that person really does appreciate the extent to which their
comment can be hurtful and whether or not they really are sexist (to whatever
degree) is a different matter altogether. Filtering your output because of
others and your true conviction are two different things and you're not doing
anybody a favor by forcing a causality here.

~~~
ceol
_> That's actually the schtick that a lot of comedians go by._

Would you agree there's a difference between a comedian telling a sexist joke
and a respected speaker at a tech conference telling a sexist joke?

 _> Prefacing your comment with "I'm going to hell for this" is perfectly fine
and in most cases, it does show that the person truly understands they're
making a comment that could offend others._

However, they didn't stop from making the comment, so I'd say it's even worse:
They _know_ what they said is offensive but _don't care_.

 _> Filtering your output because of others and your true conviction are two
different things and you're not doing anybody a favor by forcing a causality
here._

I'm not forcing any causality. If you tell sexist jokes, it's not a stretch
for people to assume you're sexist. But all too often we don't; we write it
off as "just a joke" because the person did a slight nod to their
offensiveness. Instead, we should take it the other way and _stop excusing
this behavior_. It does nothing but alienate women.

~~~
skore
> _They know what they said is offensive but don't care._

I think this might be the crux here: If you simply cannot find humor in such
jokes, that's just the way it is and I can spend all day trying to convince
you that it is possible - we simply cannot resolve this.

But it's not about whether the person telling the joke does or does not care
about whether it is offensive. Actually, a lot of comedians tell joke knowing
full well and precisely because the jokes are offensive.

> _Instead, we should take it the other way and stop excusing this behavior.
> It does nothing but alienate women._

I don't think this is a problem that we can "solve" just like there is
"solution" to human diseases. The complex moral and emotional minefield that
is human interaction is like an immune system: A dirty solution to a truly
dirty problem. It often sucks, but there is a reason why it's there: Because
it just, sadly, happens to be the best solution to a problem.

I fully agree that the "mild" form of sexism that is often laughed away is
terrible and a lot of people do a lot of hurt without even noticing a lot of
the time. But I don't think there is really a solution other to just being a
human and acting appropriately like one.

------
vectorpush
What sickens me most is that these people don't believe they're wrong. I won't
generalize every individual who's ever made a stupid comment, but I can tell
you anecdotally that these 'brogrammers' resent being called out for sexist
remarks and turn to like-minded cliques where acceptable discourse includes
long-winded rants regarding the harrowing campaign of persecution set upon
them by the likes of 'liberal whiteknights' and 'feminazi bitches'.

These guys aren't actively conspiring to exclude women from tech (in fact,
they tend to jump at any superficial opportunity to demonstrate the opposite),
but they're angry about being called sexist and they _really_ don't want to
capitulate to the suggestion that their behavior merits serious adjustment
(which is not surprising considering the correlation of ego with
'brogrammer').

The surplus of cash and minor acclaim only emboldens their resolve; there is a
subconscious belief that their financial success has conferred the wisdom to
authoritatively determine the appropriate bounds of sexual commentary for a
professional setting and anyone who can't deal with sexist bullshit can just
get the fuck outta tech because the startup is king and sensitive women (and
men) just can't handle the heat of 60 hour weeks spent reclined in front of a
widescreen LCD.

These chauvinistic kids really need a wake up call, but frankly, I fear the
money is just too good for them to ever really care.

~~~
srconstantin
I went to school with these guys. I don't have a lot of sympathy for them, but
I do have a _little_. They did find a place in the sun. Right now their skills
match what the market wants. So, like _everyone else_ , they're going to
remake the workplace in their own image. Working there sounds like it would be
acutely unpleasant, but from what I understand, it's basically the same as a
big chunk of finance culture. When tech stops being faddish, those people will
go back to finance (which is so demonized anyway that Mother Jones doesn't
report on what it's like to be a woman in finance).

------
stfu
These "I'm shocked, outraged, sick to my stomach." postings make me always a
bit uncomfortable.

It seems to me that there are two ways one can approach this subject. On to
proclaim that these are intentional acts of portraying females in a negative
light and keeping them out of the tech industry. The other, that these are
just a bunch of nerds, trying (and in large parts failing) to make coding
something "oool" or a "manly" thing to do.

As always the interpretation of these things is to a certain degree based on
the personal frame one puts these events in a context with.

~~~
wickedchicken
> It seems to me that there are two ways one can approach this subject.

There are a lot of ways you can approach this subject. I'm going to rely on an
example I used before[1]. Let's assume that if you're on this site, you
probably build some kind of web technology. Were you aware that a portion of
your users are colorblind? Did you just do a mental double-check and go
"shoot, I should check up on that?"

You didn't actively do anything against colorblind people, it simply _wasn't
on your radar_. You can go through your entire site design, do A/B testing,
deploy, get good results, and still be completely unaware of this. When
someone comes up to you and says "I'm colorblind, you should add 'OK' to this
green button because it's hard for me to use your site without that," what do
you do?

"Sorry! I didn't intentionally mean to make it hard for you to use! I deeply
regret that you can't use the site."

or how about

"Hey! Chill out! We were just trying to make a good site and the numbers say
we're ok!"

Both of those answers sound pretty awful and insensitive. And yet, these are
the responses to your "two ways" listed above. Probably the correct answer is
"Oh wow, we weren't aware that was a problem. We're going to go fix it, can
you tell us specifically what is wrong?"

Which is exactly the kind of response we need to sexism in technology. It
boils down to being aware of how your actions make other people feel, and when
an issue is brought up you consider it earnestly. When you figure that out,
_and learn to handle when you haven't_ , you can stop "being afraid of
accidentally offending someone" (itself casual sexism) and you can actually
work to make things inclusive.

One great read on this is Ellen Spertus' MIT AI Lab Technical Report[2].

[1] <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3772919>

[2] <http://people.mills.edu/spertus/Gender/pap/pap.html>

~~~
Drbble
What's wrong with the first answer?

------
slantyyz
Being a little too old to be a brogrammer (heck, I still remember when the
notion of casual workdays was a novelty), I have a simple rule that I follow:

"If you're on the clock, act like it."

That typically means no inappropriate jokes/comments or profanity in workplace
communications (email, conversation, slide decks, etc.), dressing
appropriately (i.e., casual at work, but not __too __casual, dressing up for
meeting with third parties), etc.

This idea might be considered "old school" here on HN, but it has kept me out
of trouble for a long time, and I'm sure it could work just as well for
'brogrammers' as well.

I know that the tech workplace culture is quite relaxed about many types of
borderline inappropriate behaviours, but to use another clichéd rule, "just
because you can doesn't mean you should".

~~~
MartinCron
I feel the same way, and have instructed people to "be as edgy and offensive
as you want on your own time".

This isn't really a culture/society thing. This is a workplace/professionalism
thing.

------
debacle
I didn't realize this was such a big problem. I don't think I've ever met a
brogrammer outside of the Internet.

~~~
droithomme
I've been in the industry for decades and interacted with thousands of
developers over this time. I've never seen, met or heard a legitimate report
of a brogrammer, being an immature, extroverted party going frat house
programmer. It's basically an ESxP on the Myers-Briggs. That personality type
doesn't get programming or design at all.

I have definitely seen this personality type in sales and executive positions
though, also banking and finance, and among VCs.

But among programmers? No.

Now let's talk about why the US has fewer female programmers than Russia,
China and India since that's not always been the case.

The work environment is the reason, and also pay. Hostile and confrontational
gang-attack style interviews such as the person mentioned in his talk (and
spoke out against) are a turn off for many, and women more than men. The
writer walked out on the talk before he got to his point, but it sounds like,
by criticizing the practice of gang attack interviews, and about to talk about
attracting women, he may have been about to point out that fraternities that
treat women as peers and respectfully end up with more female interest than
fraternities that engage in gang assaults. Comparing recruiting to courtship
is not a bad analogy. People don't like being abused and high quality people
are going to avoid being in relationships, whether work or personal, where
abuse is occurring, such as the many places that have gang attack style
interviews.

~~~
burgerbrain
Exactly. Everyone has worked themselves up into hysterics over the individual
words that he used, while failing to recognize what he was saying.

------
reitzensteinm
It absolutely blows my mind that people are still dumb enough to get up at
tech conferences and do sexist (in this case sexual) presentations.

A backlash seems almost inevitable at this point. Maybe they figure any
publicity is good publicity?

~~~
muhfuhkuh
No, it's "king of the mountain, piss on the peons" syndrome. You mix two parts
cash infusion, one part Valley atmosphere, a soupcon of pseudo-hacker swagger,
then mix in a big glass and let the "semi-technical biz guy" speak on behalf
of geeks.

My pet theory is that there is a super-secret, down-low, unspoken sociopathic
streak running through the Valley that is fairly reminiscent of Wall Street:
Aloofness and cold cruelty almost approaching either "evil genius" or "autism
spectrum". They don't see alot of women in high positions in the Valley, but
they hire them for booth candy or front office whatnots. So, of course,
they're doubly cruel to women.

~~~
Alex3917
Let's compare the scandals we've seen in the last few months with what is
(allegedly) said during the typical day at Goldman Sachs:

<https://twitter.com/#!/gselevator>

While much of the behavior we've seen is silicon valley is far from exemplary,
there really isn't much comparison with wall street, at least not yet.

~~~
itg
As someone who worked in finance and realizes that it also has problems when
it comes to these issues, those tweets are exaggerations/parodies which play
into the bankers being sociopaths/douchebags trope. Half those things said in
the workplace would get you sent to HR in a blink of an eye.

------
showerst
Do these companies not have HR departments? Occasionally idiotic things slip
out from employees at bigCo's too, but they're swiftly dealt with. (Which is
not to say that there aren't plenty of examples of hideous sexism at big
companies, but I haven't ever had a job that didn't present a very clear
sexual harassment policy on the first day.)

I'd have to think that the very words "uncomfortable work environment" would
strike fear into the hearts of any investors, far more than any competitive
threats.

~~~
base698
Of course they don't, they're a fucking startup. They don't have pointy haired
bosses or 900 page corporate manuals outlining when it's OK to take bathroom
breaks.

~~~
showerst
That's _entirely_ different from "If you do anything that will make anyone of
{these protected classes} uncomfortable by saying/doing something relating to
{their protected class} membership, we could be sued for hundreds of thousands
or millions of dollars, and you will be disciplined".

HR lawsuits are a _huge_ risk, _especially_ for a small company, it seems like
a no brainer for people smart enough to run an internet company not to know
that a piece of paper and a clear set of instructions, and dealing with this
stuff appropriately could save them millions down the road.

~~~
eli
I agree with you, but set aside the risk of a lawsuit. Creating an office
environment where some people feel uncomfortable or bullied is just wrong.
It's also bad for business.

~~~
showerst
Absolutely!

I guess that I'm not surprised that people could want to set up environments
that I consider wrong, or stupid, etc; that happens all the time.

My surprise is that a culture dominated by graduates from elite colleges who
grew up with American norms can be completely blind to the idea of sexual
harassment/protected class lawsuits.

Maybe it will just take one promising startup _in our industry_ to get totally
sunk by a big lawsuit to really help change things, but if so that's a sad
statement.

------
jgn
I've been a "nice guy" my whole life, and sometimes it's socially detrimental
(read: being too nice to girls that were hoping I'd be more than nice). At
some level, I find the idea of brogramming attractive. Yes, I said it, and I
know how awful that is. But consider that some very nerdy, possibly more
insecure guys could look at this culture and decide they want to be part of
it. They get to maintain their nerdiness and love of coding while making
social changes that elevate them, at least in their mind.

I've never wanted to join a frat because they all seemed like idiots, but I
can't say I haven't been jealous of them for the girls that seem to hang
around.

All that being said, do you understand what I'm getting at? No, I don't wish
for hipster sunglasses and drunken weekends. I am what I am, and typically
that means I'm too shy and/or nice to girls for my own good. But at some
level, the brogrammer culture looks cool to a guy like me.

I hope that makes sense and adds something to this discussion, it seems like
most people are a bit older here and only approach it from that perspective.

~~~
MartinCron
I'm not saying this is happening to you, but for the longest time, I had this
idea in my head "I'm nice, women don't find me attractive, therefore women
don't find nice guys attractive. Look at that guy over there, he's an jerk to
everyone and women love him. WTF?" It's easy conclusion to come to, but it's a
dangerous logical fallacy that can cause you to hyper-focus on the wrong
thing.

Different women find different things attractive, but one thing that is almost
universally unattractive is desperation and a lack of confidence.

------
sycr
Only one minor point from me: the Dan Shapiro quote is a bit off.

> To literally handicap yourself by 50 percent is insanity.

From the figures I've seen, the handicap is in the 25-30 percent range based
on the percentage of women in the industry.

But I like his line of thinking. It's an old libertarian argument too: racism
and sexism will be rooted out the market by those smart enough to take
advantage of the inconsistencies in the labor pool. It's a tremendous
opportunity if it's as bad as it seems.

~~~
zeroonetwothree
Only certain types of men would be attracted to this type of culture. It's
very possible the handicap is more like 75%.

------
cyborg
I'm the shirtless guy in the top-left photo. I feel pretty bummed that
something we did to parody the ridiculous 'brogrammer' movement was used in
this context : (

~~~
unreal37
It's a ridiculous article leaping to ridiculous conclusions. Don't be too
bummed.

------
byrneseyeview
I find it fascinating that being offended entitles people to extra credibility
and lower standards of proof. It would be interesting to imagine a world being
offended made you _less_ credible, and forced you to have higher standards of
proof.

(Incidentally, can anyone think of a case where you've smacked your head and
said "Wow! If only I'd given more credence to the people who are most
emotional about this stuff, I would have made objectively better decisions!")

I'm pretty bored of bro culture in general, and startup bro-culture in
particular, but the dialogue here seems broken.

------
mattvanhorn
Just want to say - I am not that Matt Van Horn. (I've met him, though, and I
think the article is intentionally trying to show him in the worst possible
light to drive more page views.)

~~~
mindrag
So your name is Matt Van Horn, but you are not the Matt Van Horn from the
article, but you've met him and he's actually a pretty good guy? That is some
coincidence right there.

Regardless of what kind of person he is, the presentation he gave was in poor
taste and deserves to be ridiculed. Attacking the writer or publication for
wanting to "drive more page views" doesn't change the fact that he gave a
sexist presentation.

~~~
mattvanhorn
Yeah - the coincidence is how I know him.

me: <http://mattvanhorn.com>

him: <http://mattvh.com>

Also, I did not see the presentation, so I can't comment on it firsthand, but
as portrayed it looks to be in pretty bad taste. I don't know Matt that well,
mostly through social media, but I can say that he's never come across as a
knuckle-dragging misogynist. So ridiculing the presentation is fair, but
trying to make him the face of the problem that is very widespread in the
industry seems a bit unfair. (Not to mention this is all going to come up in
Google searches for _me_ , a programmer (not brogrammer) who lives and works
in the bay area as well. /selfinterest )

------
codesuela
I find this whole brogrammer phenomenon ridiculous. It seems that it was a
joke but now people start taking this stuff serious. I feel really embarrassed
for people who describe themselves as brogrammers

~~~
burgerbrain
I am not so quick to blame the people who call themselves that. Sure, some
'brogrammers' are sexist pigs who lack self awareness, but I get a strong
feeling that the majority of them are just regular smoes who are looking to
avoid the alternative programmer stereotype that is thrust upon them by
society at large: 'doesn't shower, and likes science fiction a bit _too_
much'.

~~~
codesuela
yes I get that but how about going to gym, being groomed and well dressed and
well versed WITHOUT conforming to the Bro stereotype, you know...like a
INDIVIDUAL

It's not like you have the choice between being a BROgrammer or a PROgrammer.
You can also be an Software Engineer that doesn't conform to either
stereotypes or "subcultures" if you would call it that. People who call
themselves brogrammes seem to lack the creativity to adopt a personal style
that combines the best of both worlds: a smart, well dressed individual that
enjoys working out without making a big fuss about it.

/rant

~~~
devs1010
Or they could just decide not to make their career their personal identity. I
rarely feel the need to go out of my way to talk about my career, or tell
people what I do, unless asked, in situations where I know their line of work
has nothing to do with mine.

------
droithomme
All right, let me get this straight. So this guy gives a speech criticizing
gang bang interviews, and people walked out because they don't like the term
"gang bang".

Or is it because they are so addicted to gang bang interviews that they aren't
willing to give them up and are offended by anyone criticizing the practice.

I also despise gang bang interviews. There is no advantage to them and they
should be stopped.

I also admire this guy for having the balls to come up with the disparaging
and offensive term "gang bang interviews", because it does a great job of
reframing the discussion about this practice. I will definitely start
referring to them as "gang bang interviews" myself when mocking the practice.

Cheers!

~~~
MBlume
I _really_ hope you're just trolling, I hope no one here is actually this
obtuse.

But just in case...

Referring to them as "gang bang interviews": * implies an equivalence between
having several people take it in turns to overpower and rape you, and having
several people take it in turns to ask you questions * brings up the topic of
rape in a context where people are expected to laugh * brings up the topic of
rape for no good reason

Can you really not see how this would create an _unpleasant experience_ for
someone (ie most women) who's been taught since age 12 to fear the possibility
of being raped at any moment? Can you not see how this would create a
potentially triggering experience, one which would wipe out any benefit from
attending the conference, for an assault survivor?

~~~
droithomme
Not trolling and I take exception to the implication that my point is so
worthless.

There are many parallels. As you point out the interviewee cornered in a room
and find themselves attacked by one person after another. Most of the
interviewers have the agenda to discredit and intimidate the interviewers
whose looks or ethnicity they just don't like. If the person "looks cool"
though then they go easy. It's hostile and confrontational and the interviewer
is expected to take the abuse and not fight back or they are not demonstrating
teamwork, where teamwork in many of these companies means being a passive beta
that accepts abuse. Very different from talking one on one and having a chance
to document one's competency.

Gang bang interviews are a form of violence, they are wrong, and they should
be stopped. No one should defend gang bang interviews in tech. Or in any other
fields, but gang bang interviews are prevalent in tech mostly, I've never seen
the practice in any other field.

~~~
MartinCron
The point isn't worthless, but it's being presented in a jaw-droppingly
insensitive way.

Would you dare to say what you just said to an actual rape survivor? Are you
that emotionally tone deaf or just misanthropic? Having a bunch of people ask
you questions in a way you don't like, in a context where you're free to leave
at any time, _is not a form of violence_. Maybe it's a form of _aggression_
but not one that can credibly be compared to rape.

~~~
paulhauggis
My problem with your line of thinking is that as more and more people are
silenced because of insensitivity, our freedoms are eroded away.

What he says is insensitive, by why can't we just be adults and ignore it?

After all, pretty much any article on HN involving legalizing MJ offends me,
but I wouldn't go to my HR department if I heard people talking about it in
the workplace.

Or are you saying I should? When does it end?

~~~
MartinCron
I agree with Phillip Pullman when he says that "nobody has a right to never be
offended." and that people should be free to say things that may be offensive,
_especially on their own time_.

The simple fact that you've been offended isn't reason to go to HR. You go to
HR if you're being harassed or if people are actively creating a hostile work
environment. It _correlates_ with being offended, but it's not exactly the
same thing.

If people were _harassing_ you about your MJ legalization stance (or anything,
for that matter), then it probably _would_ be appropriate to go to HR about.

When does it end? Right there. Easy.

As far as "silencing" goes, I'm assuming that the commenter above _isn't_
trolling and honestly doesn't know that what he's saying is profoundly
insensitive. In an intellectually honest community, people can have
discussions around what would and wouldn't be considered insensitive,
especially when that's the basic context of the discussion.

~~~
droithomme
It's a fair hypothesis.

I know a few rape victims. I was able to get ahold of two of them and talk it
out.

Their opinion was the described interview tactic does not sound like something
they would want to go through and it is reasonable to speak against them. Both
also mentioned that gang bangs are not equivalent to gang rapes, differing in
consent.

~~~
koeselitz
That sort of seems to dissolve the parallel between interviews-by-committee
and actual gang bangs, though.

~~~
burgerbrain
Does it though? interviews-by-committee are consensual too...

------
redthrowaway
My problem with Van Horne's presentation is not that it was sexist or
offensive, which it was, but rather that he made himself (and path) look like
frat boy douchetards.

Here's the VP of Business Development for a company valued at $250MM, and he
acts like a _child_. The sexism, to me, is less repugnant than the notion that
an idiot like this would have such a high degree of authority in such a
highly-valued company.

------
AdamFernandez
What's interesting about the brogramming phenomenon is it seems less about
programming, and more about how to be what most would consider a pompous idiot
(I am being kind with that term, another would be 'd __ __* bag'), who just so
happens to program. The implication here is that programming is not cool
unless you are a brogrammer. I think this shows a lack of understanding or
awareness about the basic philosophy of programming (see: pompous idiot).

------
moocow01
Path... Uninstalled.

If this is how there "executives" think, I'm sure they could care less about
the ethical use and protection of user data.

~~~
Drbble
Did you miss the part where Path was caught hacking users phones to steal
their addressbooks?

~~~
moocow01
I did miss that one - I guess I uninstalled too late but that paints a pretty
complete picture of the company.

------
ojbyrne
Two things:

First of all, this isn't programmer culture, it's executive culture. MVH got
to the position he is in because his world view matchs the world view of
executives and VCs in the industry.

Second, I'm amazed that people can be critical of 'bro' culture in this
article, but when Peter Theil's course material appeared here, people were
supportive of it, even though it was essentially an intellectual argument that
this is the type of culture you want to promote at a startup.

------
nraynaud
Let's pound on programmers, they're an easier target than the bankers.

------
jwwest
How much of this is a real issue versus something that is so incredibly
annoying that any trace of it feels big? I haven't met a single 'brogrammer'
in my professional life yet...

Let the idiots filter themselves out. Obviously they love attention or they
wouldn't be doing these things. No amount of negative press on Mother Jones
will fix that. The only way is to make it personal: if you encounter this
behavior personally, say something.

That being said, our society as a whole is pretty sexist too. I don't agree
with it, but subcultures tend to reflect at least some elements of the
encompassing culture. Any male dominated field (think about truck driving or
construction) will inevitably have this problem I'm sure.

Speaking of truck driving and construction, you don't hear much from those
fields about needed more women in those roles. I truly wonder why that is.

------
dipthegeezer
Well you still have job adverts from big boys like twitter saying 'responsible
enjoyment of beer' as a prerequisite.

<https://twitter.com/jobs/positions?jvi=ooE7VfwO,Job>

If that's not appealing to the frat boy crowd then I don't know what is.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of people don't actually drink ( I know
hard to believe! ), or have a life that doesn't involve drinking all the time.
As someone who's been there and got the T-shirt I get jaded when I see things
like this. A lot of the best coders are past the 'frat boy' stage and prefer a
mature working environment when they see things like this it sends alarm bells
ringing.

~~~
theorique
There's a radical difference between a grown up workplace that sips a couple
of high quality microbrews at Friday happy hour (my most recent workplace),
and a frat house doing keg stands.

And there's a lot of room in between the extremes.

There is _absolutely nothing wrong_ with a social culture that enjoys a few
beers after a hard day of work. On the contrary, it builds bonds between co-
workers and leads to better work product.

~~~
rmc
It would obviously exclude Muslims, so might be viewed as discriminatory.

~~~
theorique
As long as there are alternatives provided - e.g. soda or juice - it should be
OK for Muslims and other non-drinkers. Unless the very presence of alcohol is
an issue.

Note that in the workplace I mentioned, the CTO (a co-founder of the company)
was a life-long non-drinker and participated enthusiastically in after-work
social events that involved responsible use of beer and other alcoholic
drinks. He just drank soda or water.

~~~
rmc
_As long as there are alternatives provided - e.g. soda or juice - it should
be OK for Muslims and other non-drinkers_

Yes probably.

It's all a continuum. Saying pre-req: "enjoyment of beer" is basically "No
muslims". Having a lot of social functions depend on beer could be an issue.
Imagine the high power workplaces of the past (and now I'm sure) where
business decisions were made in the strip club, which women would feel
uncomfortable in. Something like that for muslims could be consured as a weak
form of sectarianism, and potentially make the employer somewhat liable.

------
rudin
If you look past the horrible sexism I see an actually different undercurrent
going on here. The clash of cultures is not between these "brogrammers" and
women, but between brogrammers and "geek culture".

Geek culture has for various reasons dominated the technology sector for the
last couple of decades however the risk and reward situation involved in
startups has been attracting a different type of crowd, the brogrammers. The
geek culturists feel threatened by this new crowd and so attack them by
accusing them of sexism (a valid criticism) as it goes against one of the core
geek tenets of tolerance towards others.

I on the other hand, view the inclusion of different subcultures in the tech
industry, regardless of how they act, to be a positive thing. I hope more
subcultures will come along which will continue to break up the dominant
stereotypes in the tech industry (and hopefully address the gender imbalance
at some stage ... bring on the sisgrammers!).

------
kanchax
What about women who feel empowered by being admired? Who sincerely are much
more numerous than those shouting few defaming a really common thing,
appreciating women. Yes, there are women who feel badly when they are not
admired for their beauty. That said,

Why should we care about those guys losing 50% (or not) potential employees.
The only reason I see is those holier-than-thou people just want to impose
their view on you. If those views are better the guys will choose them. With
our current social decorum, I guess they will. I love freedom of speech.

I personally would have not apologized in the position of Path but I would
also not have done what they did in the first place. Treating women that way
is not the right way get to them in my circles.

I really don't see where the complaint on Geeklist came from. What about all
those music clips/GoDaddy commercial?

It's such a big fuss to me because I read it on HN. I got to stop reading
these decorum stories and be more productive.

------
option_greek
It's interesting that these 'sexism' articles draw huge number of comments.
Usually that would mean there are two strong sides arguing. But since they are
almost always one sided, I don't see the reason for this much of 'attention'.
Whats the point in arguing, when there is no one to argue with...

~~~
droithomme
The same guys ranting in here about how feminist they are are also in other
threads posting about how unprofessional people are who work 8 hrs and leave
at 5 to go to their kid's soccer practice.

~~~
silassliph
Yes, seeing how many times you can use the word "misogyny" in a sentence does
seem to be the new performance art.

------
jongraehl
I personally wouldn't be looking for faux-bro culture in a startup, but you
should expect people who have common goals+values and move/talk/dress alike to
bond. This has value (sure, you still want diversity in thinking/problem
solving - but in culture? not directly helpful).

So, hiring or soliciting hires on the basis of cultural compatibility, where
legal, is just a tradeoff. You lose by turning off or dismissing part of the
total pool, but if the culture is good, you get more out of those who are
compatible with it.

Copying the latest fad culture is counterproductive. The companies piling on
without any authenticity are idiotic. They'll end up with dregs pretty soon if
they all keep going to the bro well (which I assumed was ironically intended -
who knows any sincere bros?)

Of course, ironic culture is real (ironic) culture.

------
pasbesoin
Such people are scum. And, everyone has an individual decision to make whether
to associate with them -- and thereby enable them -- or not.

Here's the other thing to consider: They are not just sexist. They are classic
users/abusers. And that "user" attitude you see them displaying, and perhaps
manifesting (though there's probably a fair amount of braggadocio as opposed
to effective execution) towards women? Even as a guy, they'll manifest it
towards you -- in a second, if they see an advantage.

In short, these are not pleasant people to deal with. My individual choice,
enhanced by a few learning experiences, is to avoid getting involved with them
-- in any fashion -- in the first place.

And to the potential employer I'll say that, yes, for me this is a non-
negotiable "walking point".

------
conorwade
I was reading this article with an open mind until the SIRI issue was brought
up. This is because the groups involved were not listing themselves as
abortion providers, but as family planning clinics. Siri can't read minds
(yet!). It makes me question the motivation behind the article.

I think everyone realizes that there are far too few women in technology. The
thing is "brogrammers" are not at fault here. Girls being pushed a particular
way in school is. It is a larger cultural issue.

I will be the first to say that 'brogrammers' or whatever seem a little like
dumbasses, but people need to stop taking themselves so seriously and get a
sense of humor, aswell.

In my experience females in tech are celebrated.

This to me isn't a gender related issue, but a small general issue being blown
out of proportion.

------
molsongolden
Using bikini shots in a presentation is over the top but the rest of the
article seems a bit petty.

------
bherms
I don't think this is really a Silicon Valley problem so much as it's a
society problem in general. We technophiles are just much more inclined to
bitch about it on the internet.

------
tatsuke95
Sqoot and Geeklist may or not be sexist. If you think they are, respond
accordingly by not applying for work with them, not using their products or
actively campaigning against them.

But don't assume that they're _not allowed_ to be "sexist" (in quotations
because what they've done isn't really "sexist", more like immature). They can
run their companies any way they choose, within the laws of the land. They are
under no obligation to cater to women.

~~~
MartinCron
_They can run their companies any way they choose, within the laws of the
land._

The laws of the land are pretty clear about creating hostile work
environments.

------
tomx
How big is this problem? A number or percentage of programmers would help to
quantify things. Are all these blog posts about 10 programmers, 10% of
programmers?...

------
base698
This is not sexism--it's bad taste. A marketing guy that can only use sex to
sell sucks as a marketing guy and I'd expect more people to jump on that
aspect of the story. (I realize I'm probably jumping the gun, and he could
have instances of marketing brilliance).

What Sqoot did was kind of sexist--implying that women were only good for
getting beer. What most of these other instances have been are just bad taste.

~~~
rmc
There is no one commonly agreed-upon definition of sexism. Also there is
degrees of sexism. From "We don't hire women" to subtley making it
uncomfortable for female employees to actual gender equality. Things are not
Black or White. There is a continuum between "Saudi Arabia style" and gender
equality.

(This applies to most -isms aswell)

------
wtracy
The term "hogrammer" is being used to justify the term "brogrammer"? That term
seems ridiculously offensive in and of itself.

------
cafard
As an old balding guy working for an East Coast non-profit, I have to ask: how
much of this goes on? Is there enough to be a problem, or is this just a meme
that has caught a lot of people's attention, and will disappear once we lose
interest and get excited in something else?

------
dageshi
Startup = Punk Band.

The worse they behave the more publicity they will get, the more people will
know about their product. Plus the Techcrunch/Pando Daily's/Motherjones... of
this world need something to talk about.

Ladies and Gentlemen welcome to the age of the Punk Startup.

~~~
mrgn
...except that startups are businesses with fiduciary responsibilities to
their investors and shareholders and a legal obligation to obey employment law
including not committing or tolerating gender discrimination, harassment, or a
hostile work environment.

------
newobj
Well crying about a certain personality or type of person crowding into your
formerly insular world is hardly going to accomplish anything.

The context is a competitive business landscape so let the competition's
results sort it all out.

------
BasDirks
sexists should be ostracised, and women allowed to hack in peace.

------
ahalan
"Adding Value as a Non-Technical No Talent Ass-Clown."

haha, I love this guy

------
batista
TL;DR; A guy made some jokes anybody would fine perfectly acceptable (if not
ho-hum), and a few tight-arsed politically correct prudes walked out as if he
was citing from the Main Kampf, in order to show how anti-sexist they are.

Political correctness: or why should the far right monopolize all the
moralizing, fear of sexual references and plain old dirty jokes? Progressive
people can be prudish squares too.

Oh: and those kind of jokes can be blamed for not many women pursuing a
programming career. Like, you know, how video games make kids violent, and
lawyer jokes make people not follow a lawyer career...

~~~
frankwiles
"A guy made some jokes anybody would fine perfectly acceptable" I don't find
those jokes "perfectly acceptable", not even close.

~~~
batista
Yes, I can see how a joking mention that "I secured a position in a company
buy sending the cofounders nude pictures" can be considered controversial and
unacceptable...

in rural Utah, that is. Comedians, from Lenny Bruce to Carlin have used far
more controversial stuff --are we, tech people as a group more backwards than
the 60's and 70's people that persecuted them?

(That he wasn't a comedian is not a reason to not allow the guy his joke. Or,
are there levels of humor only allowable to comedians? I'd take my conferences
with any grain of humor one would like to put in them, thank you).

Seriously (or maybe not), humor has to be judged for what it is, not as a
manifesto or an agenda.

For example, your "Proposal to make unittest2 more accurate". People could
take offense to that, especially if it was presented at a conference "what's
with the profanity", "where's his professionalism" etc. You would consider
that justified?

~~~
frankwiles
Sorry didn't see this got a reply until now. I hear what you're saying and
being a big Carlin fan I agree that "any subject" can be made funny, it's the
intentions behind the words, etc.

Perhaps it's a double standard on my part, but the sexism in our industry is
poisonous to our future and I think we would all be better off if we
considered these topics to simply be off limits.

As for PEP712, while I wouldn't present it at a conference, I would be ok with
whatever flack I received due to using the first two letters of a profane
word.

However, I would also expect to be spit roasted online and hopefully in person
if the proposal was to pop up a nude porn pic if all of the tests passed.

------
moron
Sexting, rainbow parties, jenkem, and brogrammers. All of a piece.

~~~
chc
You clearly missed the job ad a few months back explicitly requesting a
"brogrammer" to fit in with the company culture. Sexting is also quite real
(why would MMS be the one medium by which people choose _not_ to send naked
pictures of themselves?). So unless you have good proof of rainbow parties and
jenkem, you're way off.

Note for my rather ignorant downvoting friends: This was a real job ad from a
YC company. It used that exact phrasing. Downvoting me doesn't make it stop
being real. Perhaps you should deal with your feelings instead of clicking
down arrows to make comments go away when they make you feel uncomfortable.

~~~
EvilTerran
I don't know how to refer people to the guidelines without appearing either
rude or condescending... but they _do_ say:

 _Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it
makes boring reading._

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

~~~
chc
I admit I'm guilty of that at times, but in this particular case, I was not
complaining about being downvoted — I was suggesting that the downvoters
reconsider their motivations. It was a sincere comment. You will note that
nowhere in my comment did I whine about the unfairness of the downvotes or
bemoan my lost magical fairy points.

I don't know if I'd venture to call it engrossing reading, but at any rate, I
think it's less boring than recitations of the guidelines.

~~~
EvilTerran
You threw insults at whoever downmodded you -- you baselessly asserted that
they're ignorant, hiding from their feelings, and only downmodding you because
you made them uncomfortable. That's a pretty dramatic reaction to someone
taking away some of your imaginary internet points.

Sure, it's not complaining or whining _per se_ , but it has exactly the same
effect -- whining and insults are, by their nature, intended to provoke an
emotional reaction, and so drive the conversation further away from calm &
reasonable. And calm, reasonable conversation is what sets HN apart from the
rest of the 'net.

Nice _tu quoque_ , by the way ( _"...less boring..."_ ).

~~~
chc
There was nothing to disagree with. What I said was entirely factual. The only
conceivable reason to downvote without comment (aside from being utterly
irrational) was being upset by those facts.

And yes, I was upset — that people were reacting out of ignorance. It wasn't
that I was downvoted, but what the downvotes signified, so I wanted to
particularly call attention to the secondary issue I had observed.

~~~
EvilTerran
Okay, fair enough. I've let frustration at people on the internet adversely
affect my replies far too many times myself. I know XKCD is terribly cliché,
but I've taken to keeping "Internet Argument" [<http://xkcd.com/438/>] in
mind. I find it helps ... ish.

I agree with the nobility of wanting to call people on inappropriate
downmodding ... it just doesn't usually work as an edit to the downmodded
post. No matter how hard you try, it'll almost always sound like either
whining or agression. Just like trying to point people to the guidelines
almost always sounds like rudeness or condescension. Sometimes you just can't
win. ;)

... you know, on any other online community, I'd expect us to be flinging crap
at each other like angry monkeys at this point. Even the disagreements on HN
are refreshing.

Peace.

