Wow... How did HN become a den of self-righteous, humorless self-flagellation. Someone tried to do something funny after all the overheated rhetoric of the past of couple of days along with introducing a clever bit of entrepreneurship in the process. Whether you'd buy the shirt or not (I won't) at least try to appreciate the initiative and cheekiness.
I'm just getting tired of it... I want to learn things when I come here, and I want to watch great conversations unfold, sometimes even participate in them, but these meme-cycles... the whole "x will get google reader'd!" thing, the fork my dongle thing, the chart.js 'scandal', all of these just senseless, tiring mass bursts of outrage that pop up everywhere are getting in the way of my goal of learning and conversing, and I'm just getting tired of it...
I agree with you, but this excitement is a fundamental "thing". Its a "thing" that people chase because it adds something to their day. Bored unexciting people flock to the drama and this will always be the way.
(I'm about to generalize based on my experiences)
This is why I love living in Australia. I moved from the UK about 5 years ago and people here in Perth generally have more interesting lives and there is a lot less useless drama. I remember the UK as being so much drama about nothing, our lives consisted of so much rubbish in comparison. Granted I lived in a poor part of the UK. I just love this place (Perth) so much.
Sometimes I tire of the drama, although sometimes I join in because i'm a little bored from studying and I disagree with what someone said.
Not really sure where I was going with this. Something alone the lines of people need drama. blah blah.
Some of us are still shellshocked after receiving numerous death threats and having our inboxes spammed with pictures of dismembered infants. Maybe waiting one fucking hot minute would be in order?
Hi rmrfrmrf. I went through your recent comments. By and large, they're highly inflammatory. Ease off on the vitriol and your life might get a bit easier.
To be precise, these are the comments that I find inflammatory:
> Because anti-woman and anti-black hate groups are trying to game HN with mass account creation and upvote spam.
> SendGrid would have come out stronger from weathering the storm as a defender and promoter of women in tech. Instead, they're giving in to terrorism. Anyone feeling a sense of relief out of this situation is out of their mind.
> I hope she sues the shit out of them and gets enough money to spend the rest of her life advocating for women in tech without fear of retaliation.
> No, this situation is the worst thing for women in tech. I can't begin to imagine the waves of misogyny that're about to run rampant through the tech community knowing that any woman who speaks out will be fired.
> Please take your special snowflakery elsewhere.
> No. (without explanation)
> In other words, it's OK if men do it, but not if a woman does it. (which was a complete non sequitur)
> I can't even begin to explain how fallacious this argument is. (without explanation, and it wasn't fallacious)
> Is it really that hard to act like a professional adult while you're at work? The simplest solution is to simply stop telling penis jokes at work.
> Still unfunny and tasteless. Imagine that.
> Really? All it says to me is that people in the tech field are so against a woman standing up for herself that they're actually willing to bring down the company she works for. It's disgusting.
> (cont.) Will you also feel schadenfreude when they hack her bank account?
> I bet he won't make the same mistake again. Perhaps we're all so used to going through the 6 month HR-slap-on-the-wrist process that we have lost touch of what it actually takes to change a person's behavior. (supporting mr-hank getting fired)
> Thank you -- all of these hate-laden comments are making me lose my mind.
> Since when is Twitter the same thing as a professional conference? Why are the majority of the commenters on HN completely missing the point?
> She @-replied pycon staff. Compare that to the HN and Reddit communities out for Adria's head.
> "We're not choosing your company because we believe in the right for men to tell dick jokes."
> (cont.) I'd quickly e-mail back: "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
> Thank you, Adria, for fighting the good fight. I hope that the voices of support for you drown out the rampant hate that you're receiving. Seems like HN turns into a complete shithole the second a woman "has the nerve to choose to be offended" or whatever bullshit these misogynist assholes peddle.
> (cont.) The benefit that I always see from situations like this is that it empowers the women who, in the past, have been too nervous to call people out on their shit. Just know that you're doing amazing work and are paving the way to creating an environment of gender equality.
I initially wrote a snarky comment along the lines of "that you disagree with a comment does not make it inflammatory", but looking at your comment history, it appears that you've actually tried to play the voice of reason for the whole forky-dongly "scandal". So good for you. You seem to be alone (if you ignore all the cowards - like me - who just decided to be quiet).
I don't find the above comments to be very inflammatory, though. There's a not-totally-insane POV from which Adria's actions were not only reasonable, but commendable, and necessary to disrupt an inherently hostile environment. (I don't agree with this point-of-view, and think it addresses superficial problems with culture rather than attack fundamental problems with education, but whatever.) From that same point of view, these comments are entirely reasonable - the fact that Adria is being treated as she is is only another incarnation of appalling systematic misogyny. Adria, by posting those guys' photos to twitter, was standing up to that perceived culture (if you buy into this - I personally think she was just power-tripping), and attacking Adria for doing that sounds a lot like someone saying "shut up, sit down, stop causing trouble" to someone reporting a fire.
That rmrfrmrf's comments were taken as inflammatory (by you) seems to me to be less of an indicator of the vitriol in his rhetoric, and more a measure of the gap between the two sides of this debate. (A gap this fiasco has apparently done nothing to bridge, sadly.)
That rmrfrmrf's comments were taken as inflammatory by those who sent the death threats / dismembered baby pics, on the other hand, is a good measure of the number of complete idiots who frequent HN. Hopefully not too many.
Lastly, please do /not/ tell someone who has received (or claims to have received - just to be fair) death threats to take a metaphorical chill-pill, or otherwise imply that he/she ought to correct his/her own behavior to make the death threats stop. That /is/ inflammatory.
I don't find the dongle jokes offensive, but obviously Adria did. My advice to guys at conferences would probably be, don't make dick jokes in public, because it seems somebody might overreact and you might get hurt. That has nothing to do with whether or not I think the dongle jokes are appropriate or inherently offensive. Similarly, I don't find rmrfrmrf's comments to be super inflammatory, probably because I don't feel like my position, if any, is being attacked, but if I was way polarized on the antagonist's side of things I almost certainly would.
Do we want to encourage crazy volatile feminism at conferences? Obviously no. Do we want to encourage even crazier volatile misogyny on the internet? Obviously no. Is it unreasonable, or unkind even, to encourage someone who is complaining about the negative attention they are receiving, who I perceive to be actively encouraging that negative attention without realizing it, to tone it down a little? Personally, I don't believe so, but if it falls on deaf ears, it falls on deaf ears. I just don't think that the anxiety of receiving death threats is good for anyone, and that level of anxiety can cause people to make choices that have big long term consequences. Adria has already demonstrated a predisposition to overreaction that has already led to long term consequences, and death threats are significantly more serious than whatever happened at the conference. It is not unreasonable to assume that someone actively defending her position might also overreact.
There are lots of things that I do everyday that I wouldn't do in an ideal world, but that nevertheless make existence tolerable, good even. I was simply trying to share that experience.
Hi georgeorwell. I just went through your one comment above.
You just told somebody who complained of getting death threats because of his comments here to watch how he comments so "his life might get a bit easier?"
I can't imagine anything more cowardly that you could have possibly posted.
I'm not sure why it's cowardly to suggest that. Could you elaborate? I thought it was good advice. If inflammatory comments are even possibly leading to death threats (and it seemed to me like they might be), it's probably a good idea to not post inflammatory comments. I mean, surely nobody wants to receive death threats. Are you saying that his/her comments are not inflammatory?
My standard for cowardly posting is verbal abuse and death threats, but YMMV.
These comments support somebody I absolutely disagree with, but two rights don't make a wrong. Just like it might not be a good idea to say something offensive to somebody else, does not mean you deserve death threats for it.
It should be OK to express your support for unpopular ideas on HN, like saying Adria Richards was right or that the people prosecuting Aaron Schwartz did the right thing. On the other hand, people sending threats... To quote the original poster, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out." You disagree with stuff? Fine. Downvote and move on, or reply to it and explain why. Don't play anonymous coward.
> If inflammatory comments are even possibly leading to death threats (and it seemed to me like they might be), it's probably a good idea to not post inflammatory comments.
That's 'victim blaming' and fairly inflammatory. That's not your intent. It's no different then telling women not to wear provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped (And before people suggest it, I'm not equating rape to anything here).
Basically, your intent is sound (how not to receive death threats), but your approach is insulting. The result is, the persons you are talking to are more likely to dismiss what you say because, in effect, you are blaming them for the death threats.
You seem to actually care about helping. I wish I could offer some direct advice about how to approach this different, but I can't think of any at the moment. I just know that this approach is confrontational, and completely in the opposite direction of which you seem to want to go.
> That's 'victim blaming' and fairly inflammatory.
That's ridiculous. If I play in a busy street everyday, you'd blame me when I eventually got hit by a car even though cars are always supposed to be driven under control. There are actions that victims take that increase or decrease their chances of being victimized.
> it's no different then telling women not to wear provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped (And before people suggest it, I'm not equating rape to anything here).
What about if it is telling women to go out with their friends and look after each other when they are at bars? To be aware of their surroundings? Is that victim blaming to prepare your daughter for the realities of the world?
> If I play in a busy street everyday, you'd blame me when I eventually got hit by a car even though cars are always supposed to be driven under control.
Context. You are supposed to comment on HN. You are not supposed to play in the street. If you played in a park, I'd expect you not to get hit by a car. If someone does get hit by a car while playing in a park, you don't suggest to that person they should avoid playing in the park.
> What about if it is telling women to go out with their friends and look after each other when they are at bars? To be aware of their surroundings? Is that victim blaming to prepare your daughter for the realities of the world?
No, that's good advice! And there is a distinct difference.
Yes, I know, the reality is that wearing provocative clothes can entice men, and some men will get the wrong idea, and might do bad things. But it's a bad solution to adopt the "change what you wear" approach. It doesn't solve the problem.
Basically, it's the same as this type of advice: If you don't want to get into an accident, don't use a car. Of if you dont' want to get into an plane crash, don't fly a plane. If you don't want to drown, stay out of water.
Or, if you don't want to get raped, look ugly.
But telling you daughter to go with friends, to be aware, to check in? These don't change her behavior. It minimizes risk. Indeed, if you think about it, the advice you give up there is much better than not wearing provocative clothing. Mostly because wearing provocative clothing has little to do with getting raped.
Anyways, I hope you understand better what I was trying to say. Again, it's not some new concept that I'm spouting. Spend some time reading up on it. Others do a better job at explaining it then I do.
For what it's worth, I didn't tell her to shut up. (I'm assuming it's a woman.) I just said I don't think it's such a good idea to write such inflammatory messages if you're concerned about the death threats you're receiving. This includes things like using curse words (e.g. HN is a shithole), and insulting people in other ways.
And I'm sorry, but if you know that a park is dangerous because a bunch of drunken teenagers are driving around doing donuts in it, you absolutely don't send your kid to play in it, no matter how safe it's supposed to be. And in particular, if they are, you tell your kid to stop yelling at the kids in the cars. (I realize this isn't what you suggested, but it makes your analogy less of a straw man.)
So, this isn't "don't play in traffic", this is "don't actively provoke known-to-be-crazy drivers while running around in oncoming traffic". It's just a bad idea. Especially if you're complaining about getting hurt.
Yes, all of these examples are hyperbole, but then again we have no idea about the seriousness of the threats.
Okay. You came up with the park analogy, saying that if someone got hit by a car in it, that you wouldn't not play in it on that basis. This is a fallacy because that was not the original position. The fallacy is called a straw man, because you put up the "straw man" that is supposedly my argument and then knocked it down.
All I did was attempt to make your analogy match reality more closely, to make it less of a straw man. It is a less flawed analogy now. The reality we are discussing is the situation of the person receiving death threats, not any of this other analogous stuff.
But, you know, if you just generally want to have discussions about what to do in different situations where one might or might not need to exercise caution, that can be okay. Of course if someone got hit by accident in a park I wouldn't say that other kids shouldn't play in it.
> Context. You are supposed to comment on HN. You are not supposed to play in the street. If you played in a park, I'd expect you not to get hit by a car. If someone does get hit by a car while playing in a park, you don't suggest to that person they should avoid playing in the park.
What can I say, I just genuinely don't understand why this isn't a straw man. Part of this has to do with me not being the sharpest knife in the block. Of course, if someone just randomly posted a comment here and received one death threat for doing so, I wouldn't say that they shouldn't post anymore. Isn't that the closest interpretation of your analogy? I'm serious.
The reason I think the analogy doesn't fit is due to a few differences. First, the person in question has a history of writing fairly inflammatory comments, based on my personal reaction, based on the comments containing curse words, sarcasm, insults, and all-caps (more recently), and finally based on the comments receiving downvotes. The second difference is that it's not one death threat, but multiple death threats that were alleged. The third difference is that I didn't say don't post at all, I just said don't post in such an inflammatory way. Given these three fairly significant differences, I concluded that your argument was a straw man. I could be wrong about that, but you'll have to convince me.
I now believe she was referring to Adria and not herself, so I'm really just interested in understanding whether or not the claim of it being a straw man is correct. I mean, I don't want to accuse other people of throwing up straw men if I'm just making a fool of myself. And you're right, although I've known about logic for a while, it's only recently that I started taking it more seriously in the context of discussions. I linked to Wikipedia because I thought you didn't know what a straw man was, I apologize for the insult.
Whether or not I'm trolling, I don't know what to say. It strikes me that a lot of people who troll don't even realize that this is what they're doing, so maybe I am, I don't know. It's not conscious, if so. Apologies in advance?
I get the point. My point is that reaction to "victim blaming" has swung way too far.
Kids don't deserve to get hit even if they play in the street -- even if it is expected to eventually happen. I just think there is a cognitive break in responsibility (don't blame the victim -- they have 0 responsibility for their actions) to taking some responsibility for limiting your risk.
I'm not touching the provocative clothes argument, because it's extreme and might not be backed up by the statistics. I'm just saying there are some careless actions by victims (like flashing money around in really really bad areas by yourself) that means the victims while completely undeserving of being victimized realistically need to shoulder some of the responsibility.
The poster above suggested, that if an action a poster is doing is causing death threats, it might be prudent to tone it down. I don't see that as blaming the victim.
It's no different then telling women not to wear
provocative clothing if they don't want to be raped
Telling women that not wearing provocative clothing will lower their chance of being raped is simply stating a truth. We wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. It's thus by definition sound advice and much more useful advice than stating "men shouldn't rape". Gee, thanks, the victim wasn't aware of that. Giving advice does not mean you agree with what necessitated the advice. It also does not mean that you think that if someone does not follow the advice, she deserves, morally or legally, anything that happens. Either of which you are currently arguing.
Seriously. Confusion's statement contradicts all my own reading, as well as comments from rape victims[1]/friends of rape victims. Rapists are usually not strangers looking to score. It's almost always someone the victim knows, and it's usually about power, not looks.
[1] Survivor is a better word, but it was a clunky read when I tried it. I won't be bothered if you use it instead if you reply.
I actually just thought it was a given[1], but it isn't relevant to my argument. Consider it replaced by "Telling women that not getting drunk will lower their chance of being raped" or "Telling women that not rejecting advances will lower their chance of being raped" or something else that you know is unfortunately true.
[1] Even among 'friends' (acquaintances?), chances you will be hit on are higher when wearing 'less' and considering hitting-on-and-being-rejected is a common precursor to rape...
