Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

If you want to engage a group in civil and mutually-beneficial discussion, assuming and asserting that the group is categorically evil does not tend to be productive.

Is this in reference to the article, or the post it was commenting on?

Whilst the article does perhaps go over the line in saying the behaviour is characteristic, the post it replies to is far worse, and is aggressively misogynistic.


Tony Harris's rant is just hateful. Like, wow.

But I have to conclude that the OP was referring to the title of the article. By saying "Nerds: Please stop hating women", it frames the conversation with a starting assumption that, well, nerds hate women. I understand that every content company/website optimizes for readership, and controversial titles garner more pageviews, but I have to agree with OP that vilifying the "Nerd" class as "hating women" is a bit over-the-top.

Especially meta-hilarious is the fact that it obviously is addressed to male nerds, but doesn't make this distinction, thereby also implicitly reinforcing the idea that when someone uses the word "nerd" as a class, we should assume they are just talking about men, and women are not a significant contingent of that class.


That is quite funny!

Yes, perhaps the article should have been entitled 'Some Male Nerds - please stop hating women'.

That sounds just about specific and nerdy enough :)


Actually it's in reference to both. This discussion is not going to get anywhere until at least one side acknowledges its share of the problem, and right now neither side is willing to do so.

The original post is many things, none of them good. I can't say I see convincing evidence of categorical hatred of women, but certainly it is elitist, entitled, paranoid, and puerile. It's creepy and unprofessional, and it's not even well-written. But one point can be extracted from it: that there really is a toxic cycle of mutual predation going on here. The things he claims happen do happen, not the majority of the time, but not in insignificant numbers either. I do not claim the post itself has a point: much like its response, it loads the problem onto one side only, refusing to acknowledge the mutual or cyclic nature of the situation. The reverse also occurs, not a majority of the time, but again not in insignificant numbers. And they both ruin things for a lot of people: far more than are actually involved in the problem itself.


Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact